Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc
Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin@icir.org> Wed, 15 January 2003 21:58 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11297 for <ssm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:58:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FMDdJ13804; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:13:39 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FM6xJ12919 for <ssm@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:06:59 -0500
Received: from possum.icir.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA11162 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:51:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from possum.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by possum.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0FLsv2U079721; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:54:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pavlin@possum.icir.org)
Message-Id: <200301152154.h0FLsv2U079721@possum.icir.org>
To: holbrook@cisco.com
cc: ssm@ietf.org, pavlin@icir.org
Subject: Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc
In-Reply-To: Message from Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@cisco.com> of "Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:33:05 EST." <20030115093305.E7BE610B7A7@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:54:57 -0800
From: Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin@icir.org>
Sender: ssm-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ssm-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <ssm.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ssm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
> > > * After enumerating the benefits of the SSM model in Section 1, > > > what about enumerating its limitations/drawbacks? :) > > > > Fair enough. I'll come up with something. > > I promised to come up with some text. How about this: Overall looks good to me. Few comments included below. > SSM is particularly well-suited to dissemination-style applications with > a single sender. It can be used in multi-source applications, but the > multi-source "rendezvous" functionality must be implemented by the > application or by an application-layer library. For instance, an "must" is probably a too strong word. Indeed, even though it appears that application-level solution is the only (reasonable) solution, someone might be able to come-up with some alternative, so it should not appear that the document discourages other solutions. Rewording suggestion: Replace "must be implemented by the application or by an application-layer library." With something like "might be implemented in the application level or by some other alternative solution." > application that desires to provide a secondary data source in case the > primary source fails must implement the failover mechanism in the ~~~~ Similar to above: "must" -> "might" > application itself, presumably by using two channels, as two hosts > cannot both send to a single SSM channel. SSM does not support network- > layer multicast resource discovery. Strictly speaking, the last sentence is not absolutely true. For example, lets say that there is something like Resource Discovery Agent with address S1. Then, all servers supporting service X might join SSM group (S1,G1), and all servers supporting Y might join SSM group (S1,G2). If someone wants to do resource discovery, the Resource Discovery Agent can relay the request to discover the servers supporting X or Y. Hence, what about modifying the last sentence to say that resource discovery might be possible, but with the help of additional support, such as application-level relay. Thanks, Pavlin _______________________________________________ ssm mailing list ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm
- [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Hugh Holbrook
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Hitoshi Asaeda
- RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Rolland Vida
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Toerless Eckert
- RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Rolland Vida
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Toerless Eckert
- RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Rolland Vida
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Toerless Eckert
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Pavlin Radoslavov
- RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Michael Luby
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Daniel Zappala
- Re: RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch … Hugh Holbrook
- Re: Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch … Hugh Holbrook
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Pavlin Radoslavov
- Re: Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch … Hugh Holbrook
- [ssm] building multi-sender apps with ssm Hugh Holbrook
- Re: [ssm] building multi-sender apps with ssm Pavlin Radoslavov
- Re: Re: [ssm] building multi-sender apps with ssm Hugh Holbrook