Re: Is this really an LCUP show stopper?
Jonghyuk Choi <[email protected]> Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:22:05 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF9301A2BB.9B5420F9-ON85256D3B.00490D8D-85256D3B.004969A0@us.ibm.com> |
Ted, > To me, you seem to be arguing below that the >approach (client pull, optimized by some server state) is invalid, >when my reading both of the draft and this text would be that this >approach allows a wide range of variation in the balance between >optimizing wire traffic by increasing server state and optimizing >server scale by allowing for profligate returns. While I certainly >respect your sense of the difficulty of implementation this might >pose to existing clients and servers, I'm not sure how this makes >this invalid. It is an engineering balance between two costs, >and the protocol allows the balance to shift both ways. Because even a single omission of delete / modify in history can make it impossible to recreate the previous sync result the cookie of a sync request refers to, it looks more like a matter of how long the full history information is maintained rather than how complete the history information is. That is, as to the completeness of history, it is a binary decision, not a wide range of variations. How long the full history is maintained for sync purpose would give a tradeoff. But it still requires maintaining full history in order to benefit even a small from the tradeoff. It in fact assumes an implementation option and gives tradeoffs only within that option. > is a good, short precis of your points. I do see an engineering >disagreement here on how to balance increases in state for >deployed servers vs. the value it presents. I don't see a show stopper, >though, as the draft acknowledges the possibility that maintaining state >will not be appropriate for all cases and provides other mechanisms for >them. That those are sub-optimal from a consumption perspective >is not exactly surprising, given the basic design. The concern here is that other mechanisms (full reload / sending excessive entries) would be the norm for most cases. Jong ------------------------ Jong Hyuk Choi IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center - Enterprise Linux Group P. O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 email: [email protected] (phone) 914-945-3979 (fax) 914-945-4425 TL: 862-3979