Subject: [lemonade] RECONNECT

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 11:22:32 -0400

Dave and Alexey realized that it is the same number of bytes and
round-trips to have the client store the state for reconnect than to
have the server store the state.

Alexey believes it is a small number of edits to make the change to the
document.

Because of our short time-lines, we will not abandon the server-side
RECONNECT mechanism.  Rather, we will have a new document,
draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client, that will describe the client-side
mechanism.

The work group will examine both drafts and preferably pick one
approach.  That approach will go standards-track while the other will
die.

Less preferably, we can keep both drafts, make one Experimental, and
reference the standards-track document in Profile bis.

Least preferably, we go with both drafts.

Thoughts?

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

---

From: Anil SRIVASTAVA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:37:23 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

Offloading the state information to the client is clearly preferable.

Anil

> Least preferably, we go with both drafts.

_______________
Anil SRIVASTAVA
[email-masked]

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 13:49:13 -0400

> Offloading the state information to the client is clearly preferable.

I agree.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Carnegie Mellon University

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT)

> I agree.

I concur as well.

				Ned

---

From: Curtis King <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 12:22:46 -0600

I agree.

ck

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 17:27:08 -0400

In principle, yes. I'd like to see the I-D first, though, before making
final judgements.

	Tony