Hi Lixia -
I certainly agree with your winning strategy. And if you prefer not to
discuss identifiers on this mailing list, so be it.
I still would like to observe, though, that a good understanding of what
needs to be identified may prove helpful in devising the locators that
must lead to the things being identified.
This said, I do understand your impatience to bring the discussion to
the core topic of this research group. This, in fact, reminds me of a
result from the Dagstuhl workshop in March, which the research group
didn't yet evaluate -- namely, the following set of locator properties:
- topologically sensitive
- multihoming‐capable
- local and constant cost for topological changes
Would a discussion of these locator properties be in scope?
- Christian
On Jul 8, 2009, Lixia Zhang wrote:
top posting:
- it is a generally accepted notion that some sort of identifier(s)
needs to be added to the existing architecture (I'm writing up a
short notes on my own understanding of why now, and why *not* day
one)
- since god did not write us a bible on how to design networks, we
have
to learn as we go. And one of the things I have learned from last
30 years: never be too sure about the future's need. A winning
strategy seems including the following ingredients: + start simple,
and + stay flexible, keep the mind open.
Along that line of thought: we need to understand the interplay
between
address (used for routing) and this forthcoming identifier thing,
but I
would keep the focus on address/routing, not nailing down the exactly
numbers and definitions of identifiers.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
