+1
I agree with Dan.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
> On Tue, March 23, 2010 7:24 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >
> > On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> "hot standby" implies a box sitting ("hot") twiddling its thumbs doing
> >> little bu
Hi,
after the good discussion in Anaheim, and with the help of comments
received on and off the list, I have updated the PAKE Criteria draft and
posted it as
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-ipsecme-pake-criteria-02.txt.
I have added a number of criteria, clarified others, and added numb
On Tue, March 23, 2010 11:46 pm, Dan Harkins wrote:
> Of course it's not the only reason. But you're missing the point. The
> point is that the reason doesn't matter! You want to describe a particular
> reason-- the "master" crashed and all state went over to the "hot
> standby"--
> not the gener
On Tue, March 23, 2010 7:24 pm, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Dan Harkins wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> "hot standby" implies a box sitting ("hot") twiddling its thumbs doing
>> little but waiting for another box to fail ("standby"). It's the VRRP
>> model.
>
> And that's exactly w
