Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
10.1.2.3 is simply a string litteral that may be used in place of a
DNS name. In neither case should the application require knowledge of
the IP address itself. In fact you don't want that as at some point in
the distant future, 10.1.2.3 is actually going to map to
orm to use as a
Web Service descriptor.
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:melinda.sh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tue 12/16/2008 11:59 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Bryan Ford; Keith Moore; t...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tae] The Great Naming Debate (
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> So to be strictly accurate here, applications deal in names, some of
> which are DNS names and some of which are IP address litterals. But an
> 'end user' application only deals in names.
how many people are pure "end users" who never need their tools to be
able to d
ng to map to an IPv6 address, not an IPv4 address.
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Bryan Ford
Sent: Sun 12/14/2008 2:51 PM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: t...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: The Great Naming Debate (was Re: The internet architecture)
So, after
I absolutly agree with brians posting and recomment all people
reading this paper , IMHO, it solves some
known problems , even when they don´t exist in real world yet . ;)
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/uia:osdi06.pdf
(e.g., via DNS-based load balancers that take end-to-end IP
This is a very anal retentive discussion your all having here. I support
Ford here. Applications should be able to use names and IP addresses. We
don't need the IP or DNS gestapo taking over application programs.
regards
joe baptista
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Bryan Ford wrote:
> So,
So, after being distracted by OSDI last week, I'm now trying to catch
up on the raging debates on TAE that are already exceeding all the
wildest dreams I had before setting up the list... :)
On the issue of weaning applications (and potentially transports) away
from IP addresses in favor of
Bryan Ford wrote:
> You seem to be assuming that my proposal was to disallow such
> "visibility into the network" entirely, but that wasn't my intent at
> all. I just would like it to become no longer _mandatory_ for every
> application to know about the structure IP addresses in order to
> accomp
