Subject: RE: [seamoby] CT requirements

From: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:07:08 -0500

> 
> Now, the centralized/local context storage caused some 
> issues. Thus, I would 
> like to re-word it and hope that it would be more acceptable. 
Not really. The discussions at the beginning of the 
year explicitly ruled out a centralized repository or server 
approach to ct. There was (as far as I recall) very little support 
for a "ct server" type of approach. The preference was for ct to 
be peer to peer. 
Gary, everyone:
            I was not involved in those discussions, and  thus respectfully
ask to revisit this issue. 
I am not asking, in any way, to remove the mandatory requirement from the
draft for maintaining the context at the AR, for peer to peer context
transfer. I am  simply asking for an "optional" requirement by which there
MAY be a central database for storing the contexts of dormant sessions..
The "optional" clause would not force anybody use a central database in
their ct protocol design.
My thought was to maintain a "small" local directory at the AR, only
containing the context of sessions that are currently active. The contexts
for the dormant sessions could be stored in the central repository, and are
only brought into the local cache when the session is active.
If, instead, we are to keep every possible context at the ARs, whether or
not the sessions are active, the caches at the ARs may need to be very
large, and inefficient use of memory.
I am not asking for a mandatory requirement on the central database - nobody
has to change their designs to for this "MAY" requirement.
I can accept that the ARs will keep the active contexts. 
I am only asking for this "optional" requirement.
-Sharif.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:17:08 -0800

Sharif,

We cannot make progress on completing the goal of getting the
requirements draft finished if we keep opening up issues that were
declared closed.

I would like to suggest that we keep the requriement as is with respect
to centralized v.s. local so that we can get the draft to the IESG,
since a clear majority of the working group members seem to support it.
If you and others feel that there is some need for centralized storage,
then write a draft prior next Seamoby working group laying out exactly
why you feel it is necessary and presenting a strong case, and the
working group can consider it on the list and at the meeting in
Minneapolis next March. If the working group agrees, the draft can be
published as an update to the requirements draft.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>
To: "'Gary Kenward'" <[email-masked]>; "Shahrier, Sharif
M." <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: [seamoby] CT requirements