[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] LoST Sync -08
Hi Karl Heinz,
Thanks for your quick feedback.
>Hannes,
>
>I looked at the diff and have some comments. First I think it
>is good to have an example with a figure to better understand
>how it works.
Thought so too.
>However, shouldn't Figure 1 be labeled with LoST sync for every arrow?
One could use LoST sync also in other places but in my example the
synchronization only happens between the FGs.
I thought it would confuse if I indicate LoST Sync also between the Austrian
FG and the 3 LoST servers. The reader could easily get the impression that
the boundaries stored at these three servers are then further distributed to
the FG Finland. Although one could do that this is not really the idea of
the FG.
>Figure 3: shouldn't the FG exchange mappings pointing to LoST
>servers only and not mappings pointing directly to PSAPs?
The FG exchanges whatever it is configured to exchange. In the Finland
example there is no other LoST server and hence it only exchanges what it
has.
Does this make sense?
Ciao
Hannes
>
>karl heinz
>
>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
><Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A little while ago we had a discussion about the LoST sync document
>> and I now provided the update and added a more descriptive example.
>> Please find the latest version here:
>>
>http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync/draft-iet
>> f-ecri
>> t-lost-sync-08.txt
>>
>> Let me know if the update addresses the raised comments.
>>
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>>
>> PS: I believe the discussion started with this comment:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06634.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ecrit mailing list
>> Ecrit at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>
>