Re: Definition of the pres: URI in impp-pres-01

Tuesday, January 21, 2003, 10:05:38 PM, you wrote:
DA> Dave Crocker <[email protected]> writes:

>> 1. This is supposed to be a minimal system, and that means that the
>> argument "I see no reason why we should not add this feature" is
>> exactly the wrong criterion. The proper criterion is supposed to be
>> "The system will not function without this."

DA> Well, I have ALWAYS argued that the core system has to deal with
DA> "mulicase" fanout.  I suspect that for any presentity there will be
DA> multiple watchers.

Derek, I'm not sure whether you realize that your response did not
address the point I was making.  Is this feature required for a
minimal system?  Please note that it does not matter whether I or you
would like to have it.  Is it required?

The easiest way to handle this is to ask where two things are:  a) an
existing, large-scale example of the service you are citing, b) the
indication that it is widely required for a global presence service,
and c) the technical specification that has been provided to the
working group.  Adding major features during a Last Call is not part
of the IETF culture.


>> 2. Multicast is difficult. One could rather easily argue that
>> large-scale protocol infrastructure that relies on serious multi-cast
>> -- where there is a logical single entity that is handled as an
>> aggregation of sub-entities -- is still a research topic. For example,
>> large-scale acknowledgement of multicast packets does not have an
>> existence proof, as far as I am aware. Research is not the goal of
>> this working group.


DA> I think it very much depends on your definition of multicast. What I
DA> had in mind was a two-layer "local fanout" tree.

Sounds facinating.  Where is the technical proof of concept and
specification?  Why have we not seen it until now?  Etc.

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:[email protected]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]