Re: Architecture draft coming

[David Frascone <dave@frascone.com>]

I will update the AAA document to reflect those changes and re-post to the
list.

--Dave

On Monday, 01 Jul 2002, Phil Rzewski wrote:
> We definitely made a conscious decision to phase out the word "peering" in
> favor of the less controversial "internetworking". So in all your examples
> below, we would definitely favor the "internetworking" case over the
> "peering" case.
> 
> --
> Phil
> 
> 
> At 11:18 PM 6/29/2002 -0700, Michael Speer wrote:
> >[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
> >  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]
> >
> >And more generally, for all the drafts, should we be using the term 
> >PEERING SYSTEM or INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM?
> >The new AAA draft calls the accounting system the ACCOUNTING PEERING 
> >SYSTEM.  The models
> >draft calls it the ACCOUNTING INTERNETWORKING SYSTEM.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Michael
> >
> >
> >michael.speer@sun.com wrote:
> >
> >>[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
> >>  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]
> >>
> >>The architecture draft is coming.  But, I wanted resolve a few questions.
> So,
> >>here goes.  
> >>
> >>1. In the latest model draft the terms: Distribution Peering System,
> >>Accounting Peering
> >>   System, and Request Routing Peering System have been eliminated.  The
> >>current
> >>   architecture draft makes use of these terms.  So, my question, should I
> >>drop the
> >>   use of the word peering and just use terms like Distribution System?
> Or,
> >>do in
> >>   appropriate places inset the use of the work internetworking?  Some
> >>guidance would
> >>   be appreciated.
> >>
> >>2. Next, I assume that I am correct that a content peering gateway is now
> the
> >>content
> >>   internetworking gateway.  This is correct yes?
> >>
> >>3. Is there an update to the distribution requirements document? Some of the
> >>distriubtion
> >>   methods are not defined yet.  This has impact on the distrbution part
> of the
> >>   architecture.  The draft I am reading is distribution-reqs-00.txt.
> >>
> >>
> >>I hope to have draft done by deadline Monday.  If not, I will e-mail it to
> >>group before the IETF.  Is there a meeting on Yokohama?  Or, are we waiting
> >>till the Atlanta meeting to meet again?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> --
> Phil Rzewski - Senior Architect - Inktomi Corporation                  
> 650-653-2487 (office) - 650-303-3790 (cell) - 650-653-1848 (fax) 
> 
> 

-- 
David Frascone

        I am, therefore I am (I don't draw conclusions).