[Ietf-not43] -02 requirements draft

[Rick Wesson]

Ted,

On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Ted Hardie wrote:

[snip]

> deployed) that did a far better job of query routing.  I can, for
> example, see using something like CIP (RFC2651) to provide forward
> knowledge of indexed items like registrants to servers participating
> in a mesh.

I've considered CIP but then we would need a requirement that all members
of the mesh provide distilled indexes to a root node, I seriously doubt
we will be creating any new roots or that the members of the mesh are
willing to distill CIP like indexes and provide them to anyone. Maybe for
a fee but then we are way out of scope for our charter...

> 	Your previously expressed problem was "I can't see how
> searching is going to be distributed in a fair and equitable way".
> Amending 3.2.3 so that it constrains query distribution to capture
> some version of that problem statement may be useful.  If you are
> willing to work with Andy on replacement language for 3.2.3 to capture
> that, I believe we get the best outcome--as then the working group can
> decide if the requirement should go forward in an amended form, be
> left alone as an issue which may depend too much on deployment to be
> standardized, or which should be wholly dropped.
> 			regards,
> 				Ted Hardie

My request stands at "please remove the requirement" as no one has even
attempted to discuss how searching can be distributed in a fair and
equitable way. changing the language in 3.2.3 is like requesting we
exchange silver for gold in my last analogy it still doesn't address the
fact that its not going to be fair for the vast majority of the members of
the mesh.

unfair protocols don't get deployed.

-rick