On 4/6/2010 9:34 AM, Scott Lawrence wrote:
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.
The data are more "important" than the device's IP Address?
As for "complexity", I don't see how the choice of update mechanism is affected
by data complexity.
> 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?
Each SIP UA is like an Internet Router?
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.
Unfortunately, direct participation is how the IETF measures things.
Second- and third-hand reports are subject to too much noise in the
communication path.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf