Re: [Ecrit] LoST Sync -08

[Karl Heinz Wolf <khwolf1 at gmail.com>]

>>
>>I looked at the diff and have some comments. First I think it
>>is good to have an example with a figure to better understand
>>how it works.
>
> Thought so too.
>
>>However, shouldn't Figure 1 be labeled with LoST sync for every arrow?
>
> One could use LoST sync also in other places but in my example the
> synchronization only happens between the FGs.
>
> I thought it would confuse if I indicate LoST Sync also between the Austrian
> FG and the 3 LoST servers. The reader could easily get the impression that
> the boundaries stored at these three servers are then further distributed to
> the FG Finland. Although one could do that this is not really the idea of
> the FG.
ok, I see, so you wanted to prohibit that someone thinks that the
mapping data will be syncronized all the way to the Finish FG?

I have a suggestion for a different (maybe additional?) example: why
not show the usage of LoST-sync between two LoST servers in the same
cluster synchronizing complete mappings and one LoST server pushing up
it's coverage reagion. Perhaps this makes it clearer, what do you
think?

>>Figure 3: shouldn't the FG exchange mappings pointing to LoST
>>servers only and not mappings pointing directly to PSAPs?
>
> The FG exchanges whatever it is configured to exchange. In the Finland
> example there is no other LoST server and hence it only exchanges what it
> has.
>
> Does this make sense?

I just looked at RFC 5582: "Forest guides do not provide mapping information
   themselves, but rather redirect to mapping servers."

I would argue that having the URI of the PSAP is a mapping
information, and therefore not intented to be contained in the FG. As
you write in your draft, Finland has one server acting as forest guide
and mapping server, I would say when acting as a FG it would have to
distribute something pointing to itself when doing a lost-sync with
another FG. Does this make sense?

karl heinz

> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>>
>>karl heinz
>>
>>On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
>><Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> A little while ago we had a discussion about the LoST sync document
>>> and I now provided the update and added a more descriptive example.
>>> Please find the latest version here:
>>>
>>http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync/draft-iet
>>> f-ecri
>>> t-lost-sync-08.txt
>>>
>>> Let me know if the update addresses the raised comments.
>>>
>>> Ciao
>>> Hannes
>>>
>>> PS: I believe the discussion started with this comment:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg06634.html
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ecrit mailing list
>>> Ecrit at ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>>
>>
>
>