Subject: [Ecrit] LoST #5: Boundary hints

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:39:45 -0400

I would propose that we always return a region hint to the querier. A  
separate LoST query is then used, if desired, to get the region. This  
had the advantage that there is no special case of requesting or not  
requesting boundaries (since the identifier is short) and, more  
importantly, that the common case that multiple services have the  
same service boundaries can be handled more efficiently since they'd  
just use the same identifier. Something like

Server returns:
<region>1234</region>

Client queries:

<GetRegion>
1234
</GetRegion>

Henning

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 07:29:27 -0500

Why not provide a URI to the object rather than an opaque string?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, 14 July 2006 5:40 AM
> To: ECRIT
> Subject: [Ecrit] LoST #5: Boundary hints
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:24:14 -0400

Why do you think that a URI would be more useful in this context?

Do you agree with the proposal Henning made?

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:33:01 -0500

Hi Hannes,

I'm not sure that I can agree at this stage...

On a higher level, there are two options:

 1. The information is only included upon specific request, but it is
always included "by-value".
 2. The information is included "by-reference".

Both achieve the goal of reducing the size of the response message.  I
really don't care which is used.  The second then has two options:

   a. The "key" is an opaque string, which requires specific protocol
support to retrieve.
   b. The "key" is a URI.  Retrieval depends on the type of URI.

Both of these secondary issues require further work before they can be
properly evaluated against each other - i.e. what does the URI look
like.

Regards,
Martin

> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, 14 July 2006 11:24 PM
> To: Thomson, Martin
> Cc: Henning Schulzrinne; ECRIT
> Subject: Re: [Ecrit] LoST #5: Boundary hints
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:59:27 -0400

Hi Martin,

since the identifier is only pointing to the service boundary I wonder 
whether it is necessary to use a protocol other than LoST.

Ciao
Hannes

Thomson, Martin wrote:
>>>>I would propose that we always return a region hint to the querier.
> 
> A
> 
>>>>separate LoST query is then used, if desired, to get the region.
> 
> This
>

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:19:40 -0400

That's an option, but it depends on what the LoST URL, if any, will  
look like. One reason *not* to use a URL is that comparing a string  
is a lot easier than comparing a URL. (You want to compare the  
identifier/URL to see if you already have that object.) I'm agnostic  
on this topic, but want to keep it simple.

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:23:54 -0400

I think you've provided a pretty good reason why it should be a  
string and not a URL.

-andy

On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:19 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> identifier/URL to see if you already have that object.) I'm  
> agnostic on this topic, but want to keep it simple.
>

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:34:40 -0400

On the flight home, it occurred to me that I may be wrong on this: If  
we have a recursive resolution chain, the region information will be  
inserted by the authoritative server, not the one that the client is  
querying. Thus, some form of URL (LoST or plain HTTP, most likely)  
may well be necessary since you probably don't want to go through the  
whole chain again to get the region.

On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:

>> That's an option, but it depends on what the LoST URL, if any,  
>> will look like. One reason *not* to use a URL is that comparing a  
>> string is a lot easier than comparing a URL. (You want to compare  
>> the identifier/URL to see if you already have that object.) I'm