[grobj] FW: [Fwd: Re: Problem statement] - 1st 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 90A1A3A6A10 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: -1.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.902, 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 PvgS6mdQAGdP for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7653A69CA 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 <0KWY00KXGACSB0@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for grobj@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:16 +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 <0KWY002OMACS83@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for grobj@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from j66104a ([10.111.12.78]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KWY00JYHACS2G@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for grobj@ietf.org; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:16 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:16 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com>
To: grobj@ietf.org
Message-id: <000101ca9ffc$5c6aab70$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: AcqaD3O2aXNd5MGuRMCMKLZ/ms8NJQF7G6/Q
Subject: [grobj] FW: [Fwd: Re: Problem statement] - 1st 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 09:32:02 -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 1st out of 7. Regards, Sheng > Subject: Re: [grobj] Problem statement > Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:43:09 +1100 > From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> > To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> > References: <4AFA91BF.2010808@viagenie.ca> > <4B4E6D30.5020900@gmail.com> > > Hi Brian, > > It's good to hear from you. I was thinking that you had > decided to ignore me and go forward (which might not be a bad > idea at all). ;) > > Brian E Carpenter wrote, on 14/01/10 12:02 PM: > > Interestingly, I haven't seen any debate on your comment. > Of course, > > one could argue that a generic referral object is just what your > > proposed superICE would need. > > Well, to be frank, the reason is that I don't understand how > GROBJ could be useful on its own. Sure, it would be a part of > superICE, but I don't see the point of focusing only on that > part. After asking a few times I got tired and decided I > wouldn't understand it until it had progressed further. So I > stepped back and let it progress. > > > Anyway, can you do a big favour? Sanity check the attached draft. > > I need to post it very soon to meet the BOF request deadline, but > > another pair of eyes would be very useful. > > I'm not sure I'm in a good position to do that. It's just > that I have no idea where you're going. I don't understand > GROBJ. I read the requirements and I couldn't imagine how > they would translate into bits. > > 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. 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. > > 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. > > I don't understand why R4 is needed, and I cannot imagine a > protocol that would pass this test. > > 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." > > 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. > > > >