Thanks for the prompt reply. One comment in line, confirming your reading. Joel
Hesham Soliman wrote: > Thank you for your comments. > ... >> >> The section on detecting MAP failures could use improvement. I >> realize that this is the same text as was in RFC 4140. However, it >> seems to allow fairly common undetected failures. It seems to me that >> stronger warning text about the weaknesses of manual intervention > > => Sure. > >> , and the possibility of undetected failures even with some keep-alive >> protocols ought to be mentioned. > > => What type of failures do you have in mind? a reboot that happens > between keepalives for example? Yep, that's the case I was thinking of. Because we are not esepecifying the protocol, it seems to me that these sorts of concerns should be mentioned, to indicate that the protocol needs to deal with them. ... _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
