Hi Scott, You wrote, quoting Tony Li:
>> There hasn't been much discussion on the mapping churn rate. There have >> been a few good questions, but not much back and forth. Do folks have an >> opinion or should I just propose some text? > > I understand you're trying to nail down criteria, but I think it's > premature to put numbers on this. To start with, are you still using a > general definition of "mapping", or is the question specific to > intermediary-based map-n-encap? Second, are you assuming a single > database that needs to be updated, or allowing for multiple DBs or > distributed DB? Are you taking into account that in pull models > "outdated" mapping entries might still be valid? I agree with what I understand as your concern - that each practical proposal has such a different structure that the "dynamics of the mapping function" needs to be described in different terms for each proposal. I can't think of a single answer to Tony's question which covers the problem in general, since each proposal has its own goals and ways of coping with challenges. More about this in: Concerns about the RRG process ... & how not to design an airliner 2008-03-24 http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00971.html Please also see the initial and final paragraphs in my message just sent "new draft on ' A Taxonomy for ...". I think the attempt to get a high-level theoretical perspective has potential value, but if we spend hours trying to contort complex reality into overly-remote theoretical perspectives, we are wasting precious energy when we would be better off debating the merits of each proposal, improving our proposals and improving the way they are documented. - Robin -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
