My vote was to implement said solution.

But it is a HUGE +1 to continue the discussion to resolve the issue identified!


On 3/25/20 4:14 PM, Jason Huynh wrote:
I put some comments on the proposal on the wiki.

btw what are we voting on?  Just curious as I wasn't sure if we were voting
for the current proposal or whether we should continue this discussion?

I like the idea of having transactional ops be sent together in a batch if
possible and it would be an iterative improvement, whether that is a
complete solution to a larger problem, I think might be beyond what Alberto
was proposing?

Again I am not exactly sure if this was intended to be a vote but I
would +1 the attempt and continuation of the discussion/proposal and
probably -0 the current proposal as there are some ideas/things to iron

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:49 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <> wrote:

Hi there Alberto,

It's a "-1" from me.

I have raised my concerns in the RFC comments. To summarize, whilst I
like the idea (I had never thought of that problem you are trying to
solve), I don't know how this will behave at scale. Just looking at some
of the comments, I think it is safe to say that many have similar feelings.

I like the notion of this proposal, but I'm not convinced that the
solution is actually going solve the problem. I think it might solve
only a very small part of the problem.

In essence you are proposing a distributed transaction over WAN and I
don't see enough in the proposal to convince me that we have a solution
that will solve this problem.


On 3/25/20 8:04 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote:

Could you please review the RFC for "Gateway sender to deliver
transaction events atomically to receivers"?
Deadline for comments is Wednesday, April 1st, 2020,


Alberto G.

Reply via email to