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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
