Subject: Re: [Anima] review of draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-02

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:39:01 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Hi -

>From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Sep 17, 2014 1:24 PM
>To: Rene Struik <[email-masked]>
>Cc: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Anima] review of draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-02
>
>I would expect that synchronisation could be implemented as
>a special case of negotiation. The opposite is fairly clearly
>not true.

Thanks for stating much more clearly what I was trying to say.

Answering Rene's request for specifics...
The examples of negotiation protocols that come to mind, such
as CMIP functional unit negotiation, V.32/V.32bis handshakes,
or NETCONF capability negotiation, don't seem to have much in
common with synchronization.

Randy

---

From: Rene Struik <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:21:26 -0400

Hi Randy:

Thanks for your note. However, I was looking for an example that you 
could state succinctly in technical terms (hence, my "assuming I 
understand the details" remark), rather than having to weed through 
specification documents and trying to extract the main concepts and do a 
comparison.

Of course, I can try and extract the technical problem statement from 
specification docs, RFCs, etc., but was hoping to not have to go through 
this and just analyze the core of the problem.

Now, I am not convinced yet (or cannot convince myself and am given 
another "weed through stacks of paper" exercise), while you most likely 
think you have proven your point.

Best regards, Rene

-- 
email: [email-masked] | Skype: rstruik
cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 690-7363