Mark E. Mallett wrote:
Pull retains the "openness" of the current system. but ultimately flips the
coin from push to pull
and delivers the choice to the recipient not the sender.
Personally I don't mind hearing about new ideas, but you have to
explain why the new ideas are any better or different from the old
ones. A free-form debate on a mailing list may or may not do it:
reference to a detailed document or description would be better. For
instance:
- What can "pull" do that "push + sender-system-validation" can not?
My imagination may be limited, but I can't think of anything other than
that "pull" introduces a whole nother round-trip conversation. (Now,
"pull" might be able to have other interesting things layered on top
of it, such as issuance of tickets or acceptance criteria or
redirections, but that's a more extended conversation).
- What can "push + sender-system-verification" do that "pull" can not?
Again with my limited imagination, it seems to me that
"push+validation" supports other things in the requirements document
(such as roaming) a lot better than "pull" -- and also supports
multiple sender systems better.
(Note that I am not really looking for answers here, just pushing fodder
for any potential document.)
I would second some of these points. Before going into the technical
details of how it works, lets figure out why would this make things
better. It might be useful if you use the checklist in the end of the
technical considerations document.
Yakov
-------
Yakov Shafranovich / PGP Key: 0x10D051E6 / www.shaftek.org
SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. / www.solidmatrix.com
"And this too shall come to pass"
-------
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg