Is State-based LDUP needed?
"Ed Reed" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
I asked this question at the ldup meeting on Thursday, and agreed to post the question to the distribution list. Is anyone planning to implement state-based ldup? If not - that is, if there are not going to be at least two interoperable implementations of the proposed specification, should we not remove it from the ldup design now, rather than later? The protocol will support it, but there are certainly places in the architecture and other documents where the different handling of change information required by the state-based scheme adds unnecessary text if noone is actually going to use it. This is a pragmatic decision - I personally like state based schemes, even though there are things (like transaction replication) that I doubt they'll ever be able to handle well. Also, all the implementers I know are focused on the log-based scheme, instead. It seems easier for them to get their heads around, for some reason... So - I don't think it's appropriate for me to be the only one championing it, and have reached the conclusion that if we can't find even two implementers to build it, we should not bother including it in further work. If you're planning to build it, speak up. If not, silence may well be taken as assent to remove references to it from the various protocol documents. Best regards, Ed Ps - yeah, I know, you told me so... ================= Ed Reed Reed-Matthews, Inc. +1 585 624 2402 http://www.Reed-Matthews.COM Note: Area code is 585