Hi Keith,
Thanks for the comments - it would have been great to have had you or Micah
also on the call since we had quite a strong caching bias (as opposed to
replication), but I realise you are very busy.
At 7:38 pm +0100 20/11/98, Keith Moore wrote:
>> The scope of this working group
>> is deliberately limited to cache-type intermediaries.
>
>I'm going to push back on this very strongly.
>
>It's clear that we're going to have replication via cache-style
>intermediaries, and we're going to have replication that's
>advertised via URI resolution mechanisms that can bypass caches.
>We need to make sure the two don't fight with one another.
I agree that conflict avoidance is essential. Perhaps I was a little
over-zealous when I wrote the above statement - the terminology is
confusing I think - but one of the things Bill's notes of the telephone
conference didn't expand on was the discussion we had about
"infrastructure". We did make a change to the third of the BCP-type I-Ds
proposed so that it was more infrastructure-oriented but I now see that
perhaps we need to ammend the charter description to match this too,
specifically that it is about replication and caching in general rather
than just caching. i.e. we are not just looking at traditional proxy-caches
but all of the so-called "intermediaries". Would that satisfy your concerns
any better?
How about:
"The aim of this working group is to review and document
current practice with regards inter-cache communication,
client-cache communication and more general replication issues. The
intended goal is to define a co-ordinated replication and caching
framework within the IETF."
At 9:49 pm +0100 20/11/98, Keith Moore wrote:
>I just looked at the proposed agenda for the webrepl BOF.
>
>Since:
> a) we can only have two BOFs on this topic, and
> b) we're not likely to approve a working group to address caching
> without understanding how replication will fit in to the architecture, and
> c) since there's no time on the agenda to discuss replication,
>
>I conclude that the BOF agenda needs some rethinking.
OK. Perhaps we should start with a general discussion on the scope of the
proposed working group before we get onto the charter? I will have another
look at the agenda and charter today and try to get something sent out
before this evening (my time).
I was sort-of hoping we could get most of this discussed and decided on the
list in advance of the BoF and use the BoF for the finer details. Is this
feasible?
I have just updated the charter with the above change and also a pointer to
the I2-DSI project. [If anyone has other relevant pointers, please send
them to me.]
Regards,
John
--
"The Challenge of Gigabit Networking"
The TERENA-NORDUnet Networking Conference 1999
7-10 June 1999 Lund, Sweden
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:25 MST