Subject: RE: [Mobike] Issue 29: Editorial comments from Tero

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:13:53 +0300

Jari Arkko wrote:

> >The design document also uses the word "path" in senses that
> >don't include the route taken by the packets (see e.g. the
> >definition for "primary path").
> 
> My feeling is that, for practical reasons, we should try to
> get rid of the term path, unless we use it in the route-included
> sense. There are too many people that will complain when
> they will see their favorite term misused :-)

Well, it certainly seems so...  

I've now changed those instances of "path" that don't really 
consider the route to something else (but I've kept expressions
like "paths that contain NATs", "off-path", or "currently used 
path has stopped working", which are more about the route
than just a pair of addresses). CHANGE_PATH notification was
renamed to UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES.

Once I get -01 out, let's see if this is better than -00...

Best regards,
Pasi
_______________________________________________
Mobike mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:26:00 +0300

>renamed to UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES.
Sounds good.

--Jari