Subject: [grobj] Grobj kick off discussion - scope

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:25:13 +0800

To kick off our our discussion regarding to GROBJ. I guess we can start from
the scope.

Although this BoF proposal is targetting a Generic Referral Object to be
used for referrals. For my understanding, we need to study referral
scenarios case by case. Only so, we can understand the generic charactors
among these scenarios and design this generic referral object accordingly.
By doing so, we will certainly find some particular charactors for certain
scenarios too. It will make us understand how we can meet the requirements
of these scenarios by extending generic referral object. So, I would like to
expand the scope to include the study on individual scenario cases. Of
course, this may not be reflected in the current BoF charter. But if it
reaches consensus, it could be in the formal charter later.

Any comments are discussions are welcome.

Best regards,

Sheng

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:50:10 +1200

I'd like to know if any application writers here have thought
about how an object as outlined in the draft would change the
way they write the network interface part of an application.
What's the pseudocode in two cases:

1. between receiving an IP address from a peer and successfully opening a socket?

2. between receiving a referral object from a peer and successfully opening a socket?

(assuming the semantics of the object are as defined in
draft-carpenter-behave-referral-object-00.txt)

And after that, what should we change in the next version
of the draft, since it would be good to make an update
before the BOF in Hiroshima?

    Brian

On 2009-09-21 19:25, Sheng Jiang wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> grobj mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj
>