Friday, April 29, 2011

Re: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-uri-00 WGLC

On 4/29/11 00:07, Apr 29, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> On 2011-04-29 at 14:56:11, Adam Roach wrote:
>>
>> After thinking about this a bit, there is a possibility that the
>> server is having to allocate specific resources on a per-protocol
>> basis, in which case you'd want the ability for the client to hint at
>> a preferred protocol (so as to avoid unnecessary allocation of
>> resources for unwanted protocols).
> I'm inclined to classify this as an optimization. So three reasons not to add the parameter:
> 1. laziness
> 2. it's probably not too much extra load to create a resource for most types of resources, especially if you optimize for the case where the resource isn't accessed
> 3. DHCP won't have any hinting

Fair enough.

/a
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv