Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 21:41:31 +0100 (BST)
From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: No "TOP" of the docuverse [Was: URC usage scenarios ]
To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
In-Reply-To: <9409282316.AA04644@ulua.hal.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9409292130.J27413-a100000@suna>
On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, Daniel W. Connolly wrote:
> I suggest that any scenario involving a "root" or "top" server is
> doomed to fail.
>
> There are two key features to the URN/URC service: high availability
> and authentication. If you rely on a "root" server, you create a
> single point of failure, which conflicts badly with the goal of
> high availability.
What about if the ``top'' or ``root'' was a multicast group with lots of
authoritive servers listening in for queries for URN/URC mappings that
can't be handled by more localised heirarchies.
Just a thought.
Jon
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed
Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University.
* It's not how big your share is, its how much you share that's important *