On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Teco Boot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > |Then where do we disagree? > > It started with comments on for example "LOCs are constantly in flux?"
Hi Teco, For strategy B they fluctuate as renumbering (instead of rerouting) resolves nearby link failures. For strategy H changes are more planned. > And that renumbering "consistently failed in the past". > On both, I cannot agree. On that we'll have to agree to disagree. I have too much operations experience to consider renumbering as implemented now and in the past as anything but an unmitigated failure. At any rate, that's why the comment is in the criticisms section. Whether you consider it valid or not, past operational experience with host-level renumbering will form a major criticism for strategies based on host-level renumbering. Proponents of those strategies should expect to say, "This is why it didn't work out in the past and here's what we've done about that in our new protocol." > Add "transport" in the introduction and rename SID to TSID? I'm not opposed to it, but I'd like to see if anyone else wants to weigh in first. Does Transport Session IDentity (TSID) imply a more clear purpose to which that identify is put than just calling it a SID? Or Communication Session IDentity (CSID)? Or is just plain old Session IDentity clear enough? 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
