IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tzdist] AD review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service-07 - Sections 3 - 4

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 08 May 2015 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E761A909A; Fri, 8 May 2015 13:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTeAdMNq1sFS; Fri, 8 May 2015 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB361A90D4; Fri, 8 May 2015 13:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1817; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1431116503; x=1432326103; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=rzfDexigPxX9Q75D16obsknv/zTcka7X80MMGWQukK4=; b=IWDTbbLAijGVU9aoJYXMH76aeU3NVoOsN/wLtp5fjD22qBk3emaMVm1a /iIwYAOG1Eti2UXPkhHWqg7XNfnrT15sFXsuCBd3UKC3Mkc8UbKT9Z/WV iGNkEubyrxQWGLdG4ODyrtgxAG6eyPMHF03UpKzsRM+lQjCj/MjErMXw8 s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0D6AwDTGU1V/xbLJq1cDodQwXEJhH+CXgKBbBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEIQEBBCNVARALDgoJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwBBwEBiCi1KZN4AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4s6hQUHgmiBRQEElD6BPIcih1mOeCODOUA8gncBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,393,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="464475298"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 May 2015 20:21:41 +0000
Received: from [10.61.194.54] ([10.61.194.54]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t48KLeqH015037; Fri, 8 May 2015 20:21:40 GMT
Message-ID: <554D1AD3.8040302@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 22:21:39 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, draft-ietf-tzdist-service@ietf.org
References: <CALaySJKUcgkMNsFPk0X6ur-Fw0LrB0-miQvAKYJD2rMCEFpBSQ@mail.gmail.com> <261532677658A4DDDF1A0BAA@cyrus.local> <554CFD71.3010909@andrew.cmu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <554CFD71.3010909@andrew.cmu.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cgoiTFDmw4J0hQMGjju4Q8Vq8LnrPO6Bd"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tzdist/PuekFlBCDfJAOwXHtki8w3zDK_U>
Cc: tzdist@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tzdist] AD review of draft-ietf-tzdist-service-07 - Sections 3 - 4
X-BeenThere: tzdist@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <tzdist.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/>
List-Post: <mailto:tzdist@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 20:21:44 -0000

Hi,

On 5/8/15 8:16 PM, Ken Murchison wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 01:43 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>> Hi Barry,
>> Replying to comments on Sections 3 & 4 only.
>>
>> Note: one area that needs more WG discussion here is the suggestion
>> that there be a push mechanism for primary servers to notify
>> secondary servers of changes, rather than require secondaries to poll
>> once an hour.
>
> I'd be open to discussing a push mechanism, but I'm wondering if this
> couldn't be an extension if we determine that polling is too slow or
> too much of a burden.
>

As an individual, I'd very much rather we left this for future work. 
For one thing, a secondary periodically querying a primary is not a
heavy load.  For another, I wonder whether this mechanism will even be
used between primary and secondaries or whether other out of band
mechanisms will be used.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email