[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ecrit] Forest guides
On Dec 21, 2006, at 9:02 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
Since we can't get a partial mesh, we may need some referral
operation where
an entity in the mesh undertakes to return a tree he is not
authoritative
for, but merely acts as an agent.
That's already possible with the existing spec. Any LoST server can
always return a referral (another LoST URL) in a mapping response or
a special redirection error response. Hopefully, the details will be
clearer in LoST -03.
I do think we want to have some more specifics. I'm not sure if the
specifics can be an IETF document, but that would be my
preference. What I
hope for is that there is a normative document that describes
exactly how
meshes and partial meshes work (in a protocol sense). Then I think
we can
draft a BCP that would guide creation of the mesh by countries.
The latter
document would be something we would solicit input from NENA, the
EU Expert
Group on Emergency Access, the appropriate Asian agencies, etc. If
we got
positive responses from them, we may have a solution. It's a BCP,
not a
treaty.
The lost-sync document describes this, although it can probably use
more detail in places. It allows any set of LoST servers to
synchronize their data, be that FGs or authoritative servers. This
can be either a full mesh or some partial peering mesh that floods
mapping information by more than one step. Thus, I'd appreciate
comments on the lost-sync document to make sure it has enough details
to be usable.
I'm trying to minimize the number of mechanisms across the architecture.
Henning
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit