Subject: RE: Open Issues

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:55:19 -0700

Hi Todd,

I agree with your (3) below - let's standardise a way to use
SLP to inquire about the 'network distance' (hops, and perhaps
bandwidth of some of those hops) to a discovered service.

This is seen as a significant problem in the IETF IPP WG.
We have SLP and equivalent LDAP schemas, but they don't 
include an attribute (and probably shouldn't) that talks
about 'network distance'.  Suggestions of GPS or other
physical location coordinates really aren't useful to
consuming human users.

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Rupper [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 3:23 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: Open Issues

Hi everyone,

Here are a couple more thoughts. 

  1) Service Discovery via the DA only.  IS&T administrators are scared of
multicast because of the threat of bandwidth saturation and the concept of
one request followed by unlimited replies.  I like DA multicast discovery.
The constant level of multicast is getting a bad reputation.

  2) Name to address resolution / Address to name resolution.  While DNS
does a good job in this area, the problem is that it's not dynamic
information.  SLP's lifetime features do a good job in reporting only valid
data.

  3) Service distance information.  IPX & SAP provided the number of hops
which was router dependant.  SLP's great advantage is that it is not router
dependant, but it has no way to prioritize the nearest service.

Todd Rupper.

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Hughes [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Open Issues

  Does anyone feel there are any open research issues with SLP? 

e