Subject: Re: Comments on draft-crocker-mast-proposal-00.txt

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:06:12 +0200

On maandag, sep 8, 2003, at 00:04 Europe/Amsterdam, Dave Crocker wrote:

> IvB> How are you going to decide when an address jump is in order?

> That's Section 7, again.

In other words, you don't know.  :-)

> IvB> How does MAST fit in the current communication model? Do you do 
> MAST
> IvB> first and then a three way handshake? Set up TCP first and then do
> IvB> MAST?

> Was the diagram in Section 4.1 unclear about this?

Yes. It shows the logical dependencies. What I'm interesting in is the 
order of events. Negotiate first, connect later, or connect first, 
negotiate later?

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 08:39:39 -0700

Iljitsch,

>> Was the diagram in Section 4.1 unclear about this?

IvB> Yes. It shows the logical dependencies. What I'm interesting in is the 
IvB> order of events. Negotiate first, connect later, or connect first, 
IvB> negotiate later?

What details are you looking for, beyond:

     1. Introduction:

     Hence a host may initiate and conduct a classic, single IP-
     pair TCP connection. It may then separately query for remote
     host support of MAST and initiate a MAST exchange to be used
     by that connectivity.  Either participant is then free to
     add or remove addresses. Of course use of MAST may instead
     be performed before a transport context is established, so
     that future contexts immediately have access to multiple IP
     addresses.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>