On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 04:18:23PM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
> >b) How does this conceptual framework match the specific wcip
> > proposal?
> >
> > The abstract design and specific instantiation were designed by
> > largely different groups of people and with different immediate
> > goals. A systematic comparison of the two designs may shed light on
> > both.
What I presented was primarily to get discussion going, especially
about the specific tasks that a protocol might have to address -- I'm
wary of calling it a 'design', as it's the product of some quick
whiteboarding about a week before San Diego.
Regarding the 'framework vs. specific protocol' issue, it seems to me
that calling it a framework only denotes that we acknowledge that it
may be used for other purposes in the future, and design with
extensibility/modularity in mind; it does not mean that we should try
and divine those purposes, or be restricted by them.
Following on your comments above, I'd like to see us go forward by
stepping back and getting an idea of what we'd like to do -- through
a requirements document -- and then hold up the specific proposals
against them. This will allow us to make sure everyone's on the same
page, and to quickly determine how much work is to be done, as well
as whether our requirements are reasonable.
Dan, you've been working on WCIP for a fair amount of time. I'd be
very interested to see some use cases and the requirements that come
out of them, based on your experiences.
Cheers
-- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:29 MST