To:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Date:
Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:14:21 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6AE9C80@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Message Pushing and TCP Transport
At 06:44 AM 8/17/2001, Bason, Chris wrote: >2) What is advantageous about using a push mechanism for transfer >notification in our current registry/registrar model over >using a pull mechanism? How can you do a pull if you do not even know there is anything to pull? The usual response is "polling" but that means constantly polling, and in this case constantly polling for something that is typically not present. Hence, substantial overhead, for negative benefit. Do you like constantly checking for email, when there is none? Would you not prefer that email "just arrive" when it is available? Imagine never getting telephone calls. Instead you have to call a number, to see whether there is anyone waiting to talk with you. THAT is why push is better than pull, for some scenarios. At 10:04 PM 8/20/2001, Peter Chow wrote: >I was at the Provreg meeting and there was at least one >implementor who was concerned with the extra complexity >introduced by the push mechanism. Added features ALWAYS means added complexity, so there is nothing special about someone being concerned about complexity. The focus needs to be on the question of added benefit. Is there enough benefit? For simple, low-volume registration scenarios, no doubt a simplistic protocol is preferred. If provreg is trying to produce a protocol that can support high-volume transactions, it needs to use modern transaction technology models. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464