Hi Andy,
On 18/10/2008, at 12:30 AM, Andy Newton wrote:
I'm not opposed to this idea, though I still don't know how this
will shake
out against rsync. Frankly, it would be simpler if there were just
one
mechanism, and perhaps that question ought to be asked of the
working group.
I do not think we are doing the broader community any favors by
specifying
I'm torn on this. I see the simplicity side and really appreciates
that, but I also see the benefits of heterogeneity.
two methods. I share the discomfort some people have with rsync and
feel
that an HTTP approach would be easier to troubleshoot and manipulate
operationally.
That being said, this draft does not appear to be revised with
feedback from
the last IETF. Without clarification and modification, the algorithm
specified in this draft would have serious performance issues with
HTTPS.
Yes, I didn't "go all the way" on the changes requested - I addressed
most, but refrained from some as I felt under-qualified at the time to
target some specifics.
But I do accept that I need to go further, and willing to to do so
under a WG item.
So, when are we expecting a draft revision that addresses this issue
and the
others brought forward in Dublin?
When do you want it? prior to adoption as a WG item? or as a WG item
revision?
Cheers
Terry
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
