[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ogpx] State "Partitions" should be Abelian (was: My take on Teleports and protocol resilience)

From: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>
To: ogpx at ietf.org
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:03:03 +0100
In-reply-to: <20091028120323.GA9827 at alinoe.com>
References: <20091028120323.GA9827 at alinoe.com>

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:03:23PM +0100, Carlo Wood wrote:
> If we expect messages that update state to be lost, then there
> two several ways to recover:

Excuse my English :p ... Obviously I meant "then there two ways..."

While I value Vaughn's responses highly, I was hoping on
eactions to my posts from others as well... Is it my English,
making me look like a noob maybe? Or is it too trivial/technical?

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ogpx] State "Partitions" should be Abelian (was: My take on Teleports and protocol resilience)
  - From: Vaughn Deluca

References:
- [ogpx] State "Partitions" should be Abelian (was: My take on Teleports and protocol resilience)
  - From: Carlo Wood

Prev by Date: [ogpx] State "Partitions" should be Abelian (was: My take on Teleports and protocol resilience)
Next by Date: Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case
Previous by thread: [ogpx] State "Partitions" should be Abelian (was: My take on Teleports and protocol resilience)
Next by thread: Re: [ogpx] State "Partitions" should be Abelian (was: My take on Teleports and protocol resilience)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.