5 ms·
Which RFCs did they propose the solutions in?
by jdc 9y ago
Which RFCs did they propose the solutions in?
- tyingq 9y agoGuessing they mean rfc2165 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2165 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2165 Corba had service location, and I assume many other predecessors did as well. Doesn't bother me though, stuff gets reinvented and rediscovered all the time. The more recent approaches, like linkerd tend to also include ways to easily wrap existing services without changing them, which is a plus.
- wyldfire 9y agoDNS-SD: RFC 6763 Service Location Protocol: RFC 2608 RSerPool: RFCs 5351-6
- wyldfire 9y agoAlso, of notable mention is DDS [1]. It's standardized by OMG (what's not to love about that name?) not IETF. It's a really interesting pub/sub style IPC. But really it's like a swiss-army knife. CORBA lovers (and haters) will recall IDL, it's used as the description for the interfaces used. IMO the commercial implementations are more feature complete than the open source ones. If you looked at CORBA in the 1990s and have a sour taste in your mouth, don't hold it against DDS. It's a really great approach. It describes interfaces with a dynamically negiotiated Quality-of-Service among participants. The set of reactions to QoS policy violations effectively create hooks for all of your interesting cases. IMO DDS works best when all of your participants share a broadcast domain, but it's not necessary to set it up that way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Distribution_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Distribution_Service