On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:24 -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Cullen,
I'm sure there are some deployments where polling would be fine but there
are lots that don't find this acceptable.
The Internet alaredy has quite a bit of experience with renewal of
parameters,
via DHCP and the DNS.
What is the justification that mandates a more complex model than
these use? It's not usually considered sufficient to simply cite the fact
that
some operators somewhere want something different. There needs to be a
compelling case made.
It is always possible to invent edge cases that appear to justify a different
paradigm. The real question is about real need.
The configuration data we're discussing here is substantially more
complex and more important to the operation of the device than the
information provided by either DHCP or DNS. A better analogy would be
the full configuration information for a router - would anyone argue
that only being able to change the configuration of router once every 24
hours would be sufficient?
Given that operators have survived nicely with the DHCP and DNS models, what
is
the /compelling/ need for doing something differently for the current
proposal?
It will greatly help discussion to have operators represent themselves. If
they
really believe the more complex update model is essential, they should lobby
for
it themselves. The IETF is nicely open to such participation...
But we can't require it.
The systems I work on are targeted at smaller scales that Hadriel is
arguing for, but the need for prompt (seconds, not minutes)
configuration updates is real for our market.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf