Email comments also attached:

> Over the course of reading up to section 4.3, I discovered:
> - There is such a thing as a flow (mentioned in the abstract, defined 
> in section 2)
> - There is such a thing as a session (mentioned in the introduction, 
> defined in section 2)
> - There is such a thing as a Messaging Association or MA (defined in 
> section 2)
> - Flow != Session (may be one-one, one-many or many-one, according to 
> 3.5)
> - MA != Flow (section 4.2.2)
> At this point I'm still confused.  Isn't at least one of these totally 
> up to the NSLP? That one should be nearly removed from mention in the 
> document, and the relationship of all three discussed all together up 
> front.

Sessions are primarily related to NSLPs, but there are still important aspects
with an interaction with GIST (in particular, the message ordering and routing
state poisoning aspects). 
In contrast, MAs are totally internal to GIST, and flows (strictly, MRIs) sit
pretty well exactly between the two. 
So I don't think that any can be removed.

We tried to describe the flow/session relationship 'up front' 
in section 3.5. I would prefer not to extend that discussion to cover MAs as
well because they are really quite decoupled.
We could clarify that at the end of 3.2 (where messaging associations are first
introduced).

Modified the end of Section 3.2 to clarify that there is no semantic
relationship between the MA and flow concepts. Modified text is in the following
paragraph:

   In general, the state associated with C-mode messaging to a
   particular peer (signalling destination address, protocol and port
   numbers, internal protocol configuration and state information) is
   referred to as a messaging association (MA).  MAs are totally
   internal to GIST (they are not visible to signalling applications).
   Although GIST may be using an MA to deliver messages about a
   particular flow, there is no direct correspondence between them: the
   GIST message routing algorithms consider each message in turn and
   select an appropriate MA to transport it.  There may be any number of
   MAs between two GIST peers although the usual case is zero or one,
   and they are set up and torn down by management actions within GIST
   itself.

From Lisa Dusseault:

Over the course of reading up to section 4.3, I discovered:
- There is such a thing as a flow (mentioned in the abstract, defined in section 2)
- There is such a thing as a session (mentioned in the introduction, defined in
section 2)
- There is such a thing as a Messaging Association or MA (defined in section 2)
- Flow != Session (may be one-one, one-many or many-one, according to 3.5)
- MA != Flow (section 4.2.2)
At this point I'm still confused.  Isn't at least one of these totally 
up to the NSLP? That one should be nearly removed from mention in the 
document, and the relationship of all three discussed all together up 
front.