[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri-editors] Important new XRID issue
On Thursday 10 February 2005 01:00 pm, Dave McAlpin wrote: > I'm not positive I understand the issue, but it sounds like if you have > xri://=foo and xri://=!123, you'd like two different endpoints for =, > one to answer for *foo (and other reassignable subsegments) and one to > answer for !123 (and other persistent subsegments). Is that right? yes. this is correct. > If it > is, it's just one of an infinite number of special cases. What if I want > one authority for even numbers and one for odd numbers? Or one for > reassignable subsegments that start with "a", one for "b" etc. no, this is not a 'special case'. this is suggestion for optimizations of resolution. in order to be usefull, resolution of XRI's must have resolution performace characteristics on par with the DNS. The primary issue here is 'special' in so much as the root of a namespace always has some 'special' considerations, driven by performace. The GCS char's lack an internal delegation tool within the resolution spec. there is implied delegation (i think) in =* vs =!, and we could use that. but an XRID does not allow that expression. > > The right approach, I think, is to have a single authority definition > and just redirect on the server side to the appropriate network endpoint > based on your particular rules. HTTP redirect does not scale properly at a heavily utilized root, and introduces unnecessary additional overhead to the resolver. perhaps, through Layer5 load balancing (inspection of the request URI), can make the optimizations we need, but it seems to me better to consider this in the spec at least (heck, there are a dozen ways to solve this... one of which is to accommodate it in XRI2.0) --- peterd
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]