On Jul 18, 2009, at 17:05 , Lixia Zhang wrote:
On Jul 18, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Luigi Iannone wrote:
On Jul 18, 2009, at 8:43 , Lixia Zhang wrote:
But I would like to step up a level and repeat what I said earlier:
1/ I do not think it is in our charter to define how many
identifiers we ought to have, or what they ought to be.
2/ Our job is to figureout scalable routing architecture.
I am confused here. Isn't 1 a part 2? i.e., by defining a new
routing architecture shall we not define exactly what is an
identifier (including how many different identifiers)?
Luigi
I fully agree with defining exactly what properties an identifier
ought to have with regard to routing, as we have discussed at SF IETF.
I do not believe this group is the right body to tell how many
identifiers the applications may ever want. I take the liberty to
quote a paragraph from a msg Scott Brim sent earlier in reply to
Christian (July 9, 2009 10:30:45 AM PDT):
First, let's avoid thinking of the Internet in client/server
concepts. "Service" has connotations of a destination that is
frequently accessed, well-known, and perhaps globally addressed.
We need to leave room for simple personal communications.
We need to leave room for future new applications, which we dont
know what they may be but we know for sure they will come.
I saw my earlier statement was not exactly clear; I should have said:
I do not think it is in our charter to define exactly how many
identifiers all the upper layers ought to have.
Totally agree.
together with my 3rd statement:
3/ We need to have a good understanding about the interplay between
addresses and identifiers, no less and also no more.
does this sound right now?
Yes
thanks
L.
Related to the last point: I had planned to get a short draft out
on the terminology discussion we had at SF IETF before the draft
00 deadline but you all know by now that I did not get there. I
am still trying to finish it in coming days, to get it ready for
discussion at Stockholm.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
