Subject: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:58:54 -0700

So based on the list discussion so far, I'd like to put out the following proposal for a requirement on synchronization or
its lack:

5.5.1 The CT solution SHOULD NOT provide direct support for synchronization of context. However, the CT solution SHOULD allow
particular feature contexts that require synchronization to provide that support.

        Most feature contexts will not require synchronization, however there are a few that may. Header compression,
        for example, may require that the header compressor on the old access router cease and the compressor
        on the new router start in synchrony with hand over of routing to the new router; otherwise, the compressor
        on the new router will not be properly synchronized. Since most contexts don't need synchronization support,
       the CT solution need not support it, but it should not provide a hinderance to those feature contexts that do.

Comments?

            jak

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