I was referring to your 'draft-rja-ilnp-intro-03.txt.' Regards, DY
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Dae Young KIM <dy...@cnu.ac.kr> wrote: > OK, let's get back to the bottom. > > [Point of Attchment] > > In sentence 2, paragraph 1 on page 3, you said: > > s1: “The Locator indicates the subnetwork point of attachment for a node.” > > Usually, point of attachment(PoA) is used interchangeably with > interface if I'm not wrong. For example, the following two statements > are usually regarded as the same: > > o An IP address names an interface of a node to a subnetwork. > > o An IP address names a PoA of a node to a subnetwork. > > You then say in the subsequent sentence that > > s2: “The Locator names a subnetwork.” > > The two statements, s1 and s2, are inconsistent, at least to me. s1 > should be removed or rephrased like: > > s1’: “The Locator indicates the subnetwork where a node resides in.” > > A further example might be: > > - If your Locator indicates the PoA to a subnetwork, the Locator for > each node in the same subnetwork would be different. > > - However, if your Locator would indicate the subnetwork itself, as > it does now, the Locator would be the same for all nodes in the same > subnetwork. > > In essense, I thought that > > - Neither ID nor Locator of ILNP names an interface. > - ILNP has got rid of the notion/use of PoA numbering. > > ..which I'd find one of the most significant step you have taken to > fix part of the flaw of the Internet architecture... which I'd take > high. > > Regards, > DY > > > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The tone of this is going south in a hurry. Can we please back up? >> >> Everyone here needs to act professionally and reasonably. It is not >> unreasonable to have to read the draft before commenting. It is wholly >> reasonable for an author to respond to questions from those that have read >> the draft. It is wholly unprofessional to demand an email based tutorial >> not having read the basics. >> >> Let's behave ourselves, please. >> >> Regards, >> Tony >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4/1/10 5:30 PM, "Dae Young KIM" <dy...@cnu.ac.kr> wrote: >> >>> Ran, >>> >>> Have you ever imagine this case?: >>> >>> - You think you made a complete presentation/document so that there >>> are no more uncertainty. >>> >>> - Others will still find difficulty or further curiosity in details >>> of some part of your material. >>> >>> The material might be perfect from your perspective since the whole >>> idea is in your brain. I'm wondering whether the same brain image >>> could have reloaded to those of others intact. Even so, there might be >>> points you forgot/did not think important/ to elaborate more. >>> >>> Of course, I read your material, still, being so dumber than you are, >>> I still have questions. >>> >>> Ran, I like your proposal and try to find more reasons to defend yours >>> than to destroy it. If you don't mind whether those dumb guys out >>> there catch up with your smart brain, then let it be. >>> >>> Regards, >>> DY >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:37 AM, RJ Atkinson <rja.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01 Apr 2010, at 08:56, someone wrote: >>>>> The available documents at your site: >>>>> >>>>> http://ilnp.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/ >>>>> >>>>> consists of 3 talks from 2008, 4 Internet Drafts and 10 papers. >>>>> Do you expect ... anyone ... interested in ILNP to read through >>>>> all of these ... >>>> >>>> It seems entirely reasonable to expect that participants in the >>>> RRG would at least read the applicable Internet-Drafts first. >>>> I did that for multiple proposals. Most other Routing RG folks >>>> also did that for multiple proposals. This is common practice >>>> and normal expectation in the IRTF (and for that matter, in the >>>> IETF also). >>>> >>>> It isn't difficult or especially time consuming to scan through >>>> viewgraphs, so many people would choose to do that as a fast way >>>> to learn the basics of any proposal. Often having graphics >>>> helps makes ideas more clear. >>>> >>>> IRTF Routing RG time, including ILNP, is not part of my job, >>>> unlike for some people here. Regrettably that really does >>>> mean that my time available for RRG is limited. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> >>>> Ran >>>> >>>> PS: I'll try to get my colleague to update the ILNP project >>>> web site, but that could take several days to happen... >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rrg mailing list >>>> rrg@irtf.org >>>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rrg mailing list >>> rrg@irtf.org >>> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rrg mailing list >> rrg@irtf.org >> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg >> > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
