On 7/28/08 2:07 PM, "Danny McPherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you mind iterating the motivations for this work, they're not
> in the current version of the draft? I'm genuinely interested in
> your input here, as given that you're going to be the one that has
> to implement, there's likely some obvious gaps (beyond "to
> scale") you're aiming to fill, gaps which aren't entirely obvious
> for me yet.
Not being Terry, but I'd like to expand on Terry's scalability point. The
number of tools available to for scaling HTTP are far greater than that for
rsync. The same is true about monitoring tools, which is important for
large installations.
Additionally, if there were ever a need to put any "intelligence" on the
server side, the number of ways to do so with HTTP are far, far greater than
the number of ways to do that with rsync. Of course, at the moment such a
need does not exist.
-andy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
