RE: FW: AD review of draft-ietf-rserpool-comp-07
Silverton Aron-C1710C <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rserpool |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <6F8DFFA2C996D711945800065BFC9E4A0389878A@il02exm11> |
[email protected] <> wrote: > Hi all, > >snip > > The main points raised are: > > 1) Discussion of RFC3401, etc. > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3401.txt?number=3401 > > My general feeling is that DDDS will suffer similar problems as > DNS, in terms of the lack of dynamicity in DDS. > > 2) Discussion of draft-ietf-provreg-epp-09 is more difficult. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-provreg-epp-09 > > EPP looks at some levels like it could provide some solutions, but > just in different ways than what has originally been thought of. > I would need some other folks to review EPP and DDS, to see what > other folks think. > > 3) Support for URNs. We have some discussions on namespace issues & > identifiers for RserPool. If we don't want to support URNs, we > need good reasons why we think that URNS are not a good idea for > Rserool. > > 4) Text about SLP & l4/l7 I can probably fix. John, according to Jon P's email, the L4/L7 stuff is ". . . I think the analysis here is sound. Same for the analysis of L4/L7 switching." So I wouldn't waste too many cycles on that unless you feel that there is something that needs to be changed. As for the other portions, I'm not familiar with them so I will have to read the drafts. I think that some of the comments that Qiaobing made in the past regarding loosely-coupled approaches of trying to integrate many protocols versus a tightly-coupled protocol (RSERPOOL) will hold here as well. All the more so if we stress that RSERPOOL is intended for system with some degree of real-time performance constraints. > > thanks, > John Aron > > _______________________________________________ > rserpool mailing list > [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool