Subject: [rddp] Negotiation: Warning

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 17:10:34 -0400

We seem to have a problem
on the list in that some people use the term "negotiation" to
broadly include any mechanism that provides any check on
configuration (e.g., the SCTP adaption indication would
be "negotiation" under this definition) and others use the
term only for mechanisms that always lead to successful
agreement and continuation of a connection, with the consequence
that an extra round-trip or part thereof is generally required
(e.g., the SCTP adaption indication would not be "negotiation"
under this definition, as it's purely declarative - "I'm doing
this").  I'd advise people using the term "negotiation" to be
precise about which of these two meanings they intend to avoid
future confusion, as there are strong objections in the WG to
anything that requires an extra round-trip or part thereof
(delay to send beyond initial TCP handshake).

I believe that we will wind up with at least some sort of
declarative mechanism for RDDP over TCP in order to deal with
the "proof" requirement (both ends of a connection are using RDDP
or both ends are not, but a mixture cannot happen), but I see
strong interest in the WG that any such mechanism not require
any additional delays in sending data at the start of a connection.

Thanks,
--David

----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp