Subject: Re: FW Bob's Point 5 (was Re: [NSIS] General comments on draft-ietf-nsis-fw-01.txt)

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:01:21 GMT

*> >
  *> > 	This shows up most directly in the terms NI and NR, whose
  *> > 	semantics are sometimes confusing.  Of course, *I* prefer the
  *> > 	abstractions p-src and p-dest that I introduced in my 2level
  *> > 	document ;-), but perhaps NI and NR can be made to work.
  *> > 	However, that will require careful definition and usage.  For
  *> > 	example, RSVP v1 depends upon signaling in both directions,
  *> > 	using both Path and Resv messages.  So, for RSVP v1, both
  *> > 	sender and receiver act as both NI and NR.  Some of the
  *> > 	discussion does not seem to encompass this generality.
  *> >
  *> 
  *> Bob,
  *> 
  *> I think we cover 80% of the relevant cases of reservation styles with a 
  *> simple one-pass scheme. Concerning the NI/NR terms. I like the NI, because 
  *> it does not say something about who is performing reservations, but it is 
  *> driven by somebody initiating the whole thing.
  *> 
  *> Marcus

Marcus,

I would suggest that a model that cannot describe the existing RSVP is
not adequate.  As I said, it is probably possible to define the NI/NR
model with sufficient generality so it will cover two-ended protocols
like RSVP.  It is OK to use a simplified picture for explanatory
purposes, but we need to be careful not to fall into believing that is
all there is, and careful not to write words that explicitly exclude
the more general cases.

Bob Braden

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