>Howard,
>
>>>Agree, that's why I like calling it 'forwarding state setup'.
>
>> There's also still room for ambiguity with respect to sub-IP interaction.
>
>One could think of sub-IP path as a form of forwarding state,
>so the above notion covers it, I think.
>
>Alex
I don't disagree. But I do think we are talking about different
subsystems at the next level of decomposition. Just from an
editorial standpoint, perhaps the high-level introduction should say
forwarding state can apply to more than pure IP. Otherwise, I
suspect some readers will immediately wonder "where's sub-IP?
There's an inherent danger, in requirements and architecture
documents, of starting to use terms that are obvious to the authors
and reviewers, but not necessarily to the qualified reader who did
not participate in document development.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT