IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 08 May 2015 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.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 8115A1B2F96; Fri, 8 May 2015 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 EIMOkqLJB1FY; Fri, 8 May 2015 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D18B1B2F92; Fri, 8 May 2015 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wief7 with SMTP id f7so43885864wie.0; Fri, 08 May 2015 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zsWTJ225vkkjQXADNdOnMUsTV+P7s2oDCaRKK5OF6uQ=; b=sELt3OfrYZWUZ2CVeFB+bk9wHylYS8vKmuLwrvJttN1saz87rCJy5JL9Yi7pPOb2wX QGUOPds6cg/lKBeKsZNKD1+EfUrOB00w0UCWAAQKTjRxBavEdGGqk8Tydm4l7XeezoXi 0icnkuISea5e21TWJKqMRBaPuums83JmDlLJwzWiS9FXJKlCwGieGZBbMPF7+v40h68U GGbFww4ztmBjidFNPCf71umkt/ws9m/dxxzEPgSpBtkdKdkRMcRC6/61/WRMn/yas94j iAztsLHPjLK8UPzC4Ub2qsSEosTR74oDCnjkvjg3taz2kxPeLAFA2tXLR7NhXt76stcc S/LA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.47.165 with SMTP id e5mr10167020wjn.128.1431115257296; Fri, 08 May 2015 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.11.6 with HTTP; Fri, 8 May 2015 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+EcBLx2t8NFi8RBTUPqEJy1rRgX5ZqW7ThDQNaqRxnNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALaySJKUcgkMNsFPk0X6ur-Fw0LrB0-miQvAKYJD2rMCEFpBSQ@mail.gmail.com> <261532677658A4DDDF1A0BAA@cyrus.local> <554CFD71.3010909@andrew.cmu.edu> <CALaySJ+EcBLx2t8NFi8RBTUPqEJy1rRgX5ZqW7ThDQNaqRxnNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 16:00:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CADZyTknbCsG9adzzi_anoYEsMc3jemp-fRRyurdbg0K16qeXyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b66f8e58b3d200515977c2e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tzdist/uI3UTIBAHDX2cp9UrPgz0YqNBX8>
Cc: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, "tzdist@ietf.org" <tzdist@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tzdist-service@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tzdist-service@ietf.org>, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
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 20:01:00 -0000

I would also favor that push will be treated as an extension as it may
introduce significant complexity especially if secondary servers and
primaries belong to different domains.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> A possible extension makes sense to me.
>
> Barry
>
> On Friday, May 8, 2015, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth Murchison
>> Principal Systems Software Engineer
>> Carnegie Mellon University
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tzdist mailing list
> Tzdist@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist
>
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email