Re: ASAP Handle Resolution Option

Thomas Dreibholz schrieb:
> On Donnerstag 20 November 2008, Michael T=FCxen wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> I do understand that the ID is simple, but I'm not sure if this
>> is really necessary to have for the things that are done *NOW*
>> using RSerPool.
> =

> Dear Michael,
> =

> it is indeed already needed for deployments *NOW*.

Yes, there are already deployments now. It is not useful to wait until
incompatible implementations are widely deployed. Then, it will already
be too late.


>> If you think you need this, you can integrate this in your
>> implementation and choose the higher bits such that you can
>> at least interoperate with implementation not supporting your
>> extension.
> =

> This is not a good idea, it will only create unnecessary interoperability =

> issues. I think now is the time to define this option, before other peopl=
e =

> discover the same efficiency problem and implement it in a different way.=
 A =

> scenario in which multiple ENRP servers first have to figure out the =

> capabilities and incompatibilities of their peers should be avoided. This =

> makes everything very complicated.
> =

> =

>> So I support Magnus position to close the WG.
> =

> May be this draft could simply be processed as individual submission.

This is a good idea.

The draft is already complete, so I do not see a use in re-submitting it
as WG document. Instead, it can be moved forward as Individual Submission.


-- =

Best regards,
Dirk Hoffstadt
------------------------------------------------------------------
M.Sc. Dirk Hoffstadt
DH Datentechnik
45219 Essen Germany
E-Mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.dhdt.de PGP-PublicKey:
https://dhdt.de/private/dirkhoffstadt_pubpgp.asc
------------------------------------------------------------------