>>>>> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:43:04 -0800, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> said:
>> A) It's too early for nit edits RB> not really. as the iesg has approved this one, changes are going to be RB> a process pain. so this message pushes back on some of your suggestions RB> which i would otherwise have gladly taken. As I said in a private message to you the other day: I think I probably hold the record for "people that responded with comments about a draft after the very last cut-off date". I'm exceptionally good at being a day or two late about reviewing drafts. RB> if so, probably should be CacheKey. but whose key it is seems very RB> clear from the next few words, yes? I think "CacheKey" is perfect, except that then I'd want to change "MyKey" to "RouterKey". >> I) section 8: "it would be prudent for the client"... This seems like a >> good place for the word SHOULD to sneak in there somewhere. RB> eenie meenie. did not see a need to be that strongly prescriptive. >> J) section 8: "if data from multiple caches are held, implementations >> MUST NOT distinguish between data sources when performing >> validation". >> >> This one confuses me. It's unclear, after reading the entire >> document, why you have a preference ordered list if the data from >> them all must be treated equally. RB> proximity and security The above two issues just made me wonder about the interchangeability of the configuration model. Since the text shys away from describing what actually happens when you have multiple caches available, we'll end up with a case where a configuration set on one machine may not act the same way on another. Though there is no standard configuration model at the moment, so maybe it's all moot until someone creates a YANG follow-up. -- Wes Hardaker SPARTA, Inc. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
