Routing per se only uses locators and forwarding indications, and doesn't care what properties any identifiers might have (it doesn't use them). From the point of view of routing and addressing, the motivation for locator/identifier separation is to REMOVE constraints on routing architecture, to make it possible to solve the routing architecture problems (scaling, robustness, adaptability etc.). The list of RRG requirements with respect to identifiers is negative, not positive. For example, something like: "A locator MUST NOT be constrained to a long-term association with an object. Locators name network attachment points, not endpoint interfaces.".
However, for any routing/addressing/forwarding architecture, RRG should write up the implications has on identification functions. In order to do that, we do need to understand what identification functions are essential for Internet operations. We have to be sure we understand the implications of what we recommend before we can do so responsibly. I believe we are at the point where we have a good sense of what identification functions are needed, and now we can keep that list in our back pocket, as a checklist, and narrow the scope of activity back down. Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
