Re: [grobj] Referrals problem statement at IETF 79

Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net> Tue, 09 November 2010 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@castlepoint.net>
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 9FFD63A68D7 for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 05:41:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 M+SKZqK27T7u for <grobj@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 05:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE7AD3A6895 for <grobj@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 05:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 2F81326869D; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 06:41:37 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) (authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES256-SHA 256/256) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; for grobj@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:41:36 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from shane@castlepoint.net)
X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=64.78.150.133; client-port=49198; data-bytes=0
Message-ID: <4CD94F8D.70808@castlepoint.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:41:33 -0700
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: grobj@ietf.org
References: <4CD91D58.8010608@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CD91D58.8010608@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [grobj] Referrals problem statement at IETF 79
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: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:41:13 -0000

Hi Brian,

On 11/9/2010 3:07 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I presented the draft Problem Statement for Referral
> <draft-carpenter-referral-ps-01.txt>  by myself, Sheng Jiang, and
> Bo Zhou (departing author) and Zhen Cao (new author, ChinaMobile),
> three times: in the two open meetings for the Applications and
> Transport Areas, and in the Name Based Sockets (NBS) BOF.
>
> There was significant interest and feedback in the APPAREA meeting,
> with comments that we had identified an important problem but perhaps
> not the correct direction for a solution. There was feedback that
> applications people also want a solution to the path selection problem
> (in other words, the network layer should fix the mess it's made over
> the last 15 years with NATs and two versions of IP).

I wasn't able to attend your presentation in APPAREA, (but, did it at 
other IETF's and the NBS BoF this time around).  Can you elaborate a bit 
more on "want a solution to the path selection problem"?  Specifically, 
are the APPAREA folks aware of or concerned about source & destination 
address selection in IPv6 as per RFC 3484, or 
draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-01?  Or, something (much) more complicated?

Thanks,

-shane