On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Teco Boot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I say "go on with strategy B / H". > I am not saying users should have used PA multi-homing, even if there was no > adequate toolset.
Then where do we disagree? > |> By the way, the term SID could be somewhat misleading. Lets > |distinguish > |> transport layer ID (connection ID) from session ID. > | > |Would you expand on that? I'm thinking of a session as an ID that > |conceptually speaking, lasts from the TCP SYN to the TCP FIN. Is there > |a better definition of session? What's the definition of transport > |layer ID? > > For transport protocols, the correct term is connection. > A TCP connection is identified by a pair of sockets (RFC793). > One could say UDP is connectionless. Connection isn't the right term since communication could well consist of a single stateless query and the response to that query. It could even consist of a unidirectional burst of packets notifying the receiver of some event. Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like your real complaint is that the word "session" could take on unintended connotations from SIP. I'll ask the crowd on that. Should I subsititue "transport ID" or something like that to make it clear that we're not talking about SIP-like sessions? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
