Aince the working group agreement and the request Alia is making is NOt
to store backup / cache, but to use the control loop to deal with
changes and errors, I do not follow what your comment 2 is raising?
Yours,
Joel
On 11/8/15 11:51 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Russ & Andy,
I certainly understand the desire for different behavior when a
priority override happens.
However, this is one area where the working group was extremely
clear. Sue and I had
ideas of store-if-not-best and handling overwrites and so on. There
was a very clear
push back against any such complexity. Feel free to take a read
through the archive.
While it is tempting to expand the scope and functionality of I2RS
to handle this as not
an error, I would ask that we respect the WG consensus and get
agreement and implementations
going on the basics.
We have a serious case of too many saying "This is an interesting
soup. Let's watch it." and
far too few people putting wood on the fire and experimenting.
...
(2) what needs to happen in the client and server to make the backup
data active?
It concerns me that the implementations of proprietary I2RS use caching
instead of introducing a distributed control loop here. If you think
caching is
hard, just wait until you try to get 10X - 100X faster performance out
of your
notification system to implement a tight control loop. There is complexity
in both approaches. The pub/sub work is brand new as well, so it will not
be stable for awhile.
...
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
