Subject: [Ecrit] New draft on LoST synchronization

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:58:32 -0500

I've put together a short, very rough, draft on LoST synchronization.  
Until it appears in the archives, you can find it at

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/lost-sync/draft-schulzrinne- 
ecrit-lost-sync-00.txt

and, more readably, at

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/lost-sync/draft-schulzrinne- 
ecrit-lost-sync-00.html

I'd appreciate comments on the general approach.

Henning

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:55:38 -0500

> I'd appreciate comments on the general approach.

Looks good.  Just a couple of suggestions:

1) There may be some need for a pull of a specific mapping with  
<getMappingsRequest>, but that isn't possible with the current  
definition.  An explicit flag on the <getMappingsRequest> element  
would solve that.

2) Have you considered something like the DNS notify mechanism, where  
a change notification is sent and the receivers can then pull changes  
at their leisure?

-andy

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:22:55 -0500

Andy,

thanks for your comments.

I'll add (1), but it is a somewhat different operation than 
getMappingsRequest. My current thought is to add three parameters, 
namely source, sourceID and version, all or some of which can be 
specified. That way, 'sourceID=foo.example.com' would only retrieve 
mappings from that source.

For (2), I'm trying to understand when this would be useful.

Henning

Andrew Newton wrote:
> definition.  An explicit flag on the <getMappingsRequest> element would 
> solve that.
> 
> 2) Have you considered something like the DNS notify mechanism, where a 
> change notification is sent and the receivers can then pull changes at 
> their leisure?
> 
> -andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:53:24 -0500

> For (2), I'm trying to understand when this would be useful.

It is just a different model of data distribution.... perhaps  
allowing the distribution nodes to get the new data when their load  
is low enough.  I was just noting it.

-andy

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:06:00 -0500

Since the pushing side gets to decide what to include, this is  
probably a policy issue. One easy way would be to allow

<pushMappingsRequest>
   <m sourceId="lost:authoritative.example"
        sourceId="abc123" version="1" />
</pushMappingsRequest>

instead of the full mapping, at the discretion of the originating  
server.

Would that work?

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:54:59 -0500

> instead of the full mapping, at the discretion of the originating  

I think it would.

-andy