Re: draft remarks

Eliot Lear wrote:

> 
> 
> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> 
>> While I agree that a must would imply that the document have some form 
>> or requirements status, referrals are of such a strong demand from 
>> applications that I think this needs to be addressed one way or the 
>> other. But at the interim meeting we already said that we would try 
>> and cover applications requirements in some way. So I agree with 
>> Iljitsch but I do think that the question should be in the document. 
>> Perhaps we could also come up with some more sub-questions for this 
>> point for helping describing exactly how referrals would work.
> 
> 
> Right.  What I was aiming for was something along these lines:
> 
> Referrals
> 
>    How will your solution handle referrals, such as those within FTP or
>    various conferencing or other peer to peer systems?

Also, within a single endsystem (e.g., conventional FTP) or among 
different endsystems.

>    Referrals exist within various other protocols, such as so-called
>    "peer to peer" applications.  Note that referrals might suffer three
>    types of failure:
>       firewall and NAT - just as FTP active mode experiences today with
>       relatively simple firewalls?
>       time-based - is there something ephemeral about the nature of the
>       solution that might cause a referral (such as a URL) to fail over
>       time, more so than what we have today?
>       location-based - if the binding varies based on where the parties
>       are in the network, if one moves will they no longer be able to
>       find one another?

Or will two parties who aren't moving be able to use exchanged referral 
info...

Joe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFA1yA4E5f5cImnZrsRAqvQAKDlguAQrO4euSyUgIwUQMh9vTT/HACg2hb2
Ys+OFj2AkY3XwXFhQyUKPmk=
=4Gkp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----