Subject: Re: [Rserpool] Another data channel issue: failover of messagesinbasic mode?

From: Qiaobing Xie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:03:34 -0500

Randall Stewart wrote:
...
> > Yeah, it's quite confusing now. Let me try this:
> >
> > basic mode - defined as a PU <-> pool session with no control channel;
> > enhanced mode - defined as a PU <-> pool session with a control channel;
> >
> > Note, I don't say PE here because of potential SF. Let's see if we can
> > agree on this first :-)
>
> I would agree with the above :-)

Good. With the above definitions, I will try here to re-phrase what I
was trying to say earlier in this thread, that is: message failover (MF)
and session failover (SF) are **orthogonal** to the two modes as defined
above. I.e., one can get MF and SF in either of the modes.

I don't think we have any disagreement here to the technical aspects of
the protocol. It is just a matter of the accuracy of the
terminology/definitions and how to precisely describe the relationship
between the modes and SF/MF in the service draft. 

regards,
-Qiaobing

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool