Re: [Notifications] Reliability
Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Fri, 10 August 2007 19:20 UTC
Return-path: <notifications-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IJa2U-000831-QT; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:20:50 -0400
Received: from notifications by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IJa2U-00082s-5P for notifications-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:20:50 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IJa2T-00082k-SD for notifications@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:20:49 -0400
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IJa2S-0005JY-ET for notifications@ietf.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:20:49 -0400
Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1582142203; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RCELSaPte6rz; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (ip10.commerce.net [157.22.41.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43811142201; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C38DC11F6B4FF4FAEA73E30DB5AA157E7A870@esebe199.NOE.Nokia.com>
References: <4C38DC11F6B4FF4FAEA73E30DB5AA157E3F135@esebe199.NOE.Nokia.com> <46BADC44.2060706@it.su.se> <4C38DC11F6B4FF4FAEA73E30DB5AA157E7A870@esebe199.NOE.Nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <504BEDBB-5B4F-461F-ABE1-990B452B912A@osafoundation.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Notifications] Reliability
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:20:43 -0700
To: Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Cc: notifications@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: notifications@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Message Notifications interest group discussion list <notifications.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/notifications>, <mailto:notifications-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/notifications>
List-Post: <mailto:notifications@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notifications-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/notifications>, <mailto:notifications-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: notifications-bounces@ietf.org
On Aug 10, 2007, at 4:55 AM, <Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com> <Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com> wrote: > > Regarding email: > It may be ok from our point of view - but the end-user will notice > that > He was not notified about some mails - and if it's not a free service, > he is going to complain (because he is missing events that were > important to him)... > > ... > Regarding future extensions: > I do think there might be a few future candidates for extensions to > this > notification framework that will not tolerate the fact that this > protocol is unreliable. So, instead of simply defining an extension to > this notification framework, a completely new mechnism will be > invented. > > I do think that the notification mechanism has to be reliable. > Otherwise > we did not achieve anything because people will try to re-invent the > wheel every time they need something that they can count on when > everything else fails. > Hi Zoltan, Do you think the reliability requirements for mail-related events (not delivery, not access, but events) are really significantly greater than the reliability requirements for SIP and instant messaging? If I was in IM conversation with a colleague and one of their messages to me got dropped, that would seriously derail the conversation and I would not find that acceptable. I've never noticed that happen, however. One of the points I was making, which I think you agree with, is that if we're going to build on top of the deployed pub/sub infrastructure, the reliability of that system is what it is. We can only make certain choices in our schemas to improve on that or break it, without changing the system functionality itself, which I believe we don't want to get into. In the long run, if people want greater reliability than what we get by default, people will build new systems or strengthen the reliability of their existing systems. thanks, Lisa _______________________________________________ Notifications mailing list Notifications@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/notifications
- [Notifications] Reliability Zoltan.Ordogh
- Re: [Notifications] Reliability Leif Johansson
- RE: [Notifications] Reliability Zoltan.Ordogh
- Re: [Notifications] Reliability Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [Notifications] Reliability Leif Johansson
- Re: [Notifications] Reliability Henning Schulzrinne