Re: [Rserpool] Request for WG Last Call: Comparison of Protocols for Reliable Server Pooling

Hello,

About draft-ietf-rserpool-comp-03.txt.
Sorry to drop so late in the game, but I thought that the document had
evolved more than that since I first read it.

The section (2.1) about CORBA is ... well ... not serious. What can
you conclude when you read sentences such as :
	Currently, the applicability of CORBA is unclear

CORBA has been around for 15 years, is implemented on every platform
in the universe and used from nuclear plants to fly-by-wire systems
and its applicability is unclear ?

Also the mention of «variants» of CORBA is misleading, there is no
such thing as a variant. Just specs an ORB can elect to conform to
and that cover different domains. All can be combined in the same
product if needed.

Although there is no strict IIOP (the CORBA TCP-based interoperability
protocol) mapping to IPV6, there is no reason to think that is it not
a straightforward extension.
CORBA has its own security infrastructure which may use IPsec when
available.

Fault tolerant CORBA has too many common points with rserpool and its
applicability domain to be mentionned just by name.
Of course there are reasons to believe that it may be too high level
for use in a strictly IP environnement, but there is no technical
analysis whatsoever.

The CORBA trader is also very similar to some aspects of rserpool.

The CORBA Load Balancing Service is not even mentionned.

The section 4 Comparison table misses some points, most likely due to
the lack of consideration of many CORBA aspects.

Best regards,
					Julien Maisonneuve.
-- 
Julien Maisonneuve, PhD, AMTS		Control Software Unit B1-346
Alcatel Research & Innovation		Alcanet: 2111 1577
Route de Nozay				Tel: +33 1 6963 1577
91461 Marcoussis cedex			Fax: +33 1 6963 1359
FRANCE					Julien.Maisonneuve@alcatel.fr

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