Comments on the centroids paper
Rickard Schoultz <schoultz@admin.kth.se> Mon, 30 August 1993 11:34 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21069; 30 Aug 93 7:34 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21063; 30 Aug 93 7:34 EDT
Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04941; 30 Aug 93 7:34 EDT
Received: by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA09203; Mon, 30 Aug 93 04:20:04 PDT
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-wnils-request@ucdavis.edu
Received: from aggie.ucdavis.edu by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA09150; Mon, 30 Aug 93 04:18:34 PDT
Received: from othello.admin.kth.se by aggie.ucdavis.edu (5.61/UCD2.05) id AA27682; Mon, 30 Aug 93 04:14:18 -0700
Received: from localhost.admin.kth.se by othello.admin.kth.se (5.65+bind 1.8+ida 1.4.2/4.0b) id AA23958; Mon, 30 Aug 93 13:14:24 +0200
Message-Id: <9308301114.AA23958@othello.admin.kth.se>
To: ietf-wnils@aggie.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Comments on the centroids paper
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 13:14:23 +0200
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Rickard Schoultz <schoultz@admin.kth.se>
Folks, Breaking the Silence Of The List, I have some proposals, comments and questions on the Centroids paper that I wish to bring up for discussion. Comments are very welcome... Consider this tree of whois++ servers: ___ | | | A | |___| / \ ___/ \___ | | | | | B | | C | |___| |___| / \ \ ___/ \___ \___ | | | | | | | D | | E | | F | |___| |___| |___| (A polls centroids from B and C. B polls from D and E. C polls from F.) 1. Handle uniqueness: What happens if server C starts polling E? A query posed to server A will then get two identic matches from B and C. One way to solve this is to let server A remove duplicate answers, but that means that the record handles presented by B and C must be identic. Bringing this up with Chris, we found that we can do this by having the handle composed of the server handle and the record handle (eg. "serverhandle/recordhandle"). But should the origin server handle really be easily deduceable from that handle by a server several "hops" away? This behaviour will have two sides. On one hand, a remote server can use that extracted server handle to pose subsequent related queries to that server directly for faster lookup. On the other hand, this means that this direct access will bypass some caching server, and might thus add to the total network load and decrease total lookup speed. 2. Strong namespaces: Suppose all index servers in the layout above have polled the servers below for "description" fields in "services" templates. If there is a query posed to server A that asks for "mail" with no field specification, should the index server then change the query to "description=mail"? If server A passes the query unmodified, it might match a *lot* more things than intended, thus making the namespace that A was supposed to hold garbled. Maybe this should be mentioned or even restricted in some document. 3. Trace information for servers: The administrator of server D finds whois++ networking really cool and decides to start polling server A to get fast lookups for some data. Server A is an open server that doesn't put any restrictions on who is to be allowed to poll it. This will affect FORWARDED-QUERY, SERVERS-TO-ASK and DATA-CHANGED which might all get caught in a loop if there is no trace information. I suggest we put that information inside these command records with a common field name like: FORWARDED-QUERY ... Path: handle1,handle2,handle3 ... END FORWARDED-QUERY There could be some more information in the query path like time stamps, but I don't know if it is a good idea - at least not for the moment - to put in needs for more computation in this time critical command. 4. TTL for responses: A response to a forwarded-query is typically (always?) sent to another server, which in turn could cache this response for some time. Wouldn't it be appropriate with a TTL together with the response from the server that gave the originating response? This imposes some encapsulation on the response (FORWARDED-RESPONSE?), but I don't have a good idea how this nested record could be composed in a nice way. Any taker? 5. Search scope: I think the user has to be able to specify the scope of the search, if it should be local-only or not, and maybe even a maximum hop-count (of which I can't find any use). This would mean the creation of the constraint SCOPE={local|normal|from-top} or something similar. 6. What is a namespace?: I am a bit confused about what I'm asking here, so please bear with me. Whois++ gives us the ability to have more than one carved-in-stone namespace. But on what level are those namespaces partitioned? As I see it, it may be on I) templates, II) Strict from top to down server trees, III) matches to specific fields. Now if we pose a query to a random place in a tree and we didn't get the matches we wanted, we might want to expand our search to servers "above" our query point. The queriued server knows what servers are above from the POLLED-BY information. But how do we know that we are in the same namespace when querying those servers? Should there be a way to identify namespaces? (How would one set up multiple namespaces on one server?) 7. Minor detail - port and handle in SERVERS-TO-ASK The SERVERS-TO-ASK command is to return host name or IP address of another whois++ server to query. There needs to be a port number for this too, since not all whois++ server will be on one port. There is also a need for a server handle for each of the servers to ask if the resource has moved after the index server polled the resource. -Rickard -- Rickard Schoultz schoultz@admin.kth.se KTH/SUNET +46-8-790 90 88 (voice) S-100 44 Stockholm (SWEDEN) +46-8-10 25 10 (fax)
- Comments on the centroids paper Rickard Schoultz
- Re: Comments on the centroids paper Chris Weider
- Re: Comments on the centroids paper Simon E Spero
- Re: Comments on the centroids paper Chris Weider