RE: [Rserpool] FW: AD review of draft-ietf-rserpool-comp-07

john.loughney@nokia.com <> 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
> rserpool@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
rserpool@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool