Subject: Re: SLP for Capabilities Discovery

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:59:14 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Keith,

I'd also like to see some justification for this out-of-hand rejection.
In particular, if you take a moment to read the draft, you'll see
that the solution proposed in the draft satisfies every one of the 
requirements listed in John Beck's draft (draft-beck-rescap-req-00.txt).
If you disagree with the assessment listed in the draft, or there are
some other requirements that didn't come out at the Minneapolis meeting
in March which you think are important, then I think it would be more
fruitful to present them then to simply declare SLP a noncontender
by fiat.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in the original email, the intent of this
draft was not necessarily to push SLP (though I think it makes a strong
case) but rather to point out that introducing a new protocol for
RESCAP introduces the possibility that it could be misused as yet
another service discovery protocol, even though it wasn't designed
to be. And additionally to suggest that existing protocols be examined
to see whether they might be modified in simple ways to make them an 
appropriate solution for RESCAP. My understanding of the way the IETF
works (and I must admit I am a newcomer so please let me know if this is 
incorrect) is that the ADs are responsible for ensuring architectural 
consistency. It would therefore be interesting to hear your views as to why you 
believe that this misuse would not be a problem, or why you feel that such a 
misuse would, in fact, not occur.

Thanx.

		jak

>X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
>From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
>To: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
>cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: SLP for Capabilities Discovery 
>X-SUBJECT-MSG-FROM: James Kempf <[email-masked]> 
>Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:07:07 -0400
>
>SLP is not a candiate solution for RESCAP.  They are in very
>different spaces and it would be a Bad Idea to try to make
>the same tool do both jobs.
>
>Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:11:05 -0400

> I'd also like to see some justification for this out-of-hand rejection.

sorry, it was a snap response.  I was tired, and I've had to answer 
this question several times already (though to different groups each time)
I'll respond more completely after I've had some rest, and before doing
so I'll reread the drafts.

> introducing a new protocol for
> to be.

sure.  but surely that doesn't justify misusing a service discovery
protocol as a resolution protocol.

in general, anytime there's not a tailor-made solution to a problem, 
the Internet has a tendency to adapt/misuse/abuse any protocol that 
does something even vaguely isomorphic to the problem.  But the fact
a new protocol also has the potential for misuse, should not stop us 
from defining new protocols.

Keith