I too understand how this is necessary to complete the solution. The instances where this is truly useful are probably limited, but it is easy to do. I don't have any feedback on the solution - what is suggested is similar enough to the service boundary option already in place. So on the principle of least surprise, this is a good document.
-----Original Message-----
From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Henning Schulzrinne
Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2009 8:01 PM
To: ECRIT
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-wolf-ecrit-lost-servicelistboundary
I believe that the service list boundary draft fills a small, but
important, hole in the LoST architecture, as it makes it possible to
deal effectively with regions having different services. (Without
this, user agent might miss new services when they move.)
Henning
Karl Heinz prepared some nice slides for our "virtual interim
meeting" to describe the ServiceListBoundary concept, see
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ecrit/trac/attachment/wiki/WikiStart/draft-
wolf-ecr
it-lost-servicelistboundary.ppt We had a couple of folks saying
that this is a useful extension to LoST. Marc and I would need a few
more folks who support the idea and are willing to review the
document. Please drop us a note. Ciao Hannes & Marc
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit