Hi Dale, A bit thanks for your careful (as always) review. Med, thanks for responding and updating the document. I think there's just one point left that I want to comment on: On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:38:20PM +0000, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hi Dale, > > Thank you for the careful review. Much appreciated! > > The changes to take into account your review can be tracked at: https://tinyurl.com/8782bis-latest. > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Dale Worley via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > > Envoyé : mardi 23 mars 2021 01:42 > > À : gen-art@xxxxxxxx > > Cc : dots@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.all@xxxxxxxx; last- > > call@xxxxxxxx > > Objet : Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05 > > [...] > > Also, you need to specify whether > > the connection to the alternate server is a new session (with > > independent state) or whether it is expected to be a continuation of > > the existing session (carrying the same state). > > [Med] This is covered here: > > When the DOTS client receives a 5.03 response with an alternate > server included, it considers the current request to have failed, but > it SHOULD try resending the request to the alternate DOTS server. This seems to imply that the session state indeed is preserved across the change of server, since it is just "resending the request" without mention of reestablishing aliases or other setup. We probably should be more explicit about what we expect to happen, here. Thanks, Ben -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
