Hi,
On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > > IMO standards based on operational experience have a better chance of success. > Yours, > Joel > Andy > > 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
