|
Ken:
1) My take was that Speermint separates LUF/LRF. The
protocol as defined can certainly support returning a LUF output, but folks
seemed to want to push further than that or not make any distinction between the
two functions.
2) my concern is the increasing complexity takes the
protocol beyond our needs which might lead us to look towards something
simpler.
Penn Pfautz
AT&T Access Management
+1-732-420-4962
From: Cartwright, Kenneth [mailto:kcartwright at tnsi.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:28 PM To: PFAUTZ, PENN L, ATTCORP; drinks at ietf.org Subject: RE: Comment on today's drinks discussion Thanks for the
feedback. 1) How do you feel that
we are not supporting the LUF/LRF concepts? Can’t a Destination Group and
its associated Route Group be used to return a URI whose domain name is the one
that requires as an output of the LUF? Or is there something that I’m
missing? 2) What specifically
would need to be done to the protocol to make it more useful for your company’s
likely applications? Ken From:
drinks-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:drinks-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of PFAUTZ, PENN L,
ATTCORP I've been away from the design group
for a while since the focus seemed to shift more to lower level design issues
outside of my bailiwick but I came away from today's IETF discussion
with an uncomfortable feeling about where the drinks effort is
heading. One the one hand I feel that some of
the issues we agreed to set aside to narrow scope (LUF/LRF) are coming back
to haunt us and on the other that the effort is straining as Otmar suggests to
accommodate more and more complexity that should, perhaps be handled elsewhere.
Perhaps these are different sides of the same coin.
I for one have concerns about
how useful the resulting protocol is likely to be, at least for my company's
likely applications. Penn
Pfautz AT&T Access
Management +1-732-420-4962 This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information of Transaction Network Services. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. |
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.