[grobj] FW: [Fwd: Re: Problem statement] - 2nd out of 7
Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com> Thu, 28 January 2010 09:32 UTC
Return-Path: <shengjiang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: grobj@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grobj@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25863A69CA for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:32:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.601, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Ap2KE8lq0Rt for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:32:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54A93A6A05 for <grobj@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KWY005B4ADXNA@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for grobj@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KWY009PLADXLL@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for grobj@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from j66104a ([10.111.12.78]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KWY008PBADXOW@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for grobj@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:57 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:57 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com>
To: grobj@ietf.org
Message-id: <000201ca9ffc$74ce1bc0$4e0c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acqe8GAplGKQ4Ra1TtOlWwdm/1zWLgBDAE9g
Subject: [grobj] FW: [Fwd: Re: Problem statement] - 2nd out of 7
X-BeenThere: grobj@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss Generic Referral Objects <grobj.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj>, <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grobj>
List-Post: <mailto:grobj@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grobj>, <mailto:grobj-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:32:03 -0000
FYI, there were some private discussion regarding to the new GROBJ problem statement draft. Resend it to the grobj maillist with permission. Wish to light wider discussion. There are 7 emails in this thread. This is 2nd out of 7. Regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:09 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: Dan Wing; simon.perreault@viagenie.ca > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [grobj] Problem statement] > > Hi, Simon, > > Thanks for your comments. It is very helpful for all of us to > understand GROBJ and what we may be able to achieve. For your > information, we are actually NOT to have a BoF in Anaheim. > Let's discuss it through emails, also f2f meeting in Anaheim. > > > Take for example R1. I disagree with it. If I was to design > GROBJ in > > the context of superICE, the requirement would be that the GROBJ > > should have the minimum amount of information that is > necessary in all > > cases. The goal would not be to design a way to convey the maximum > > amount of information and hope it all works out. The goal > would be to > > design a protocol that works in all cases and figure out > the minimum amount of information necessary to make it work. > > I will a thrid side for R1. "all available information" is > not a good start in my eyes. It may take us to get a 1kB data > in a situation that > IP/IPv6 addr is enough to work out. "minimum amount of > information that is necessary in all cases" is also a problem > for me. To be able to work in ALL cases, "all available > information" seems the only choice. > Actually, even all available information may not be enough > for some cases. > > Can we forget about ALL at the beginning stage? We should > focus on necessary information for most cases we count so far > and then make the GROBJ extensiable for further use. If we > can agree on this, we can sit down discussion what the > nessary information is and in which cases. > > > This is why I > > also disagree with R2. But I also disagree with R2 because > I find it too fluffy. > > I can't derive a test from it that could be used to > evaluate candidate protocols. > > Basically, for my understanding, what we do here is "the best > efforts". > We cannot guarantee the reachability. It can be only test > when a receiving entity actually have the GROBJ. > > > I don't understand R3. How can we be sure that such a > Reference item > > "can be used to find a path to the referred entry"? In my > > understanding, an IP address doesn't fit this requirement > because we > > often cannot find a path (or we find the wrong path) for > e.g. RFC1918 addresses. > > Again, we cannot sure at all. From the view of the > constructor of a GROBJ, it just selects the most useful item > from its pwespective. We make the best efforts, it may not > work out at the end. > > > I don't understand why R4 is needed, and I cannot imagine a > protocol > > that would pass this test. > > My understanding for this R4 is that we are going to define a > single universal format. And the discription of its options > is independent from network situations. > > > I disagree with R5. Efficiency should never be a requirement. It > > should be a criteria by which protocol proposals that > otherwise fulfil > > all requirements are evaluated. E.g. "efficiency will be preferred." > > R5 takes me back to R1 again. All information is definitely > not efficiency. We don't want send 1kB data in the situation > that 10B can work out. It is efficiency. It is also necessay > vs enough. > > That's it for now. We should keep our discussion continue > until we feel we understand and consensus. Then, we may be in > next stage to attract more attension with better requirement > descriptions. > > Best regards, > > Sheng > > > I agree with R6. > > > > I agree with R7, but I would also add forward compatibility. > > > > I'm ambivalent about R8. To me it feels like R7 covers it. > > > > Same with R9. It seems to me that qualifying the amount > needed with "reasonable" > > makes this requirement intangible. > > > > I think I agree with R11 and R12. > > > > Aren't R13 and R14 covered by R9? > > > > R15, R16, and R17 have no meaning to me until I understand how this > > scope thing will translate into bits. > > > > I very much agree with Rxx. > > > > Take all this with a grain of salt. Maybe eventually I will > understand > > it all and realize it was a good idea. For now I just feel lost. > > > > Hoping you find this useful, > > and hoping we can discuss this in Anaheim, Simon > > > > P.S. Feel free to forward this email to grobj@ietf.org if > you think it's worthwhile. > > > > > > > > > > >