Re: [icnrg] Review of ICN Terminology document (draft-wissingh-icnrg-terminology-01)

Ravi Ravindran <ravi.ravindran@huawei.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ravi.ravindran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7CD129494 for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7e1qnIWD-SSY for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E69F6128CFF for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CEH44162; Wed, 24 May 2017 16:52:28 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.39) by DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.177) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:52:27 -0700
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.117]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.229]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 24 May 2017 14:52:25 -0700
From: Ravi Ravindran <ravi.ravindran@huawei.com>
To: David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net>, "Wissingh, B.F." <bastiaan.wissingh@tno.nl>
CC: "icnrg@irtf.org" <icnrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [icnrg] Review of ICN Terminology document (draft-wissingh-icnrg-terminology-01)
Thread-Index: AQHS1LBjJLFCCfWSHEiryn4T/9GejaIEBKxg
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 21:52:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D96E28F4A22C864DBC6C871B5B1C4CC3229A9EC0@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <860B46EC-D3DD-4F60-A4FE-9EA65BEBDBAD@orandom.net>
In-Reply-To: <860B46EC-D3DD-4F60-A4FE-9EA65BEBDBAD@orandom.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.49.19]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/pWvRofWmkVl39aVEG9ahv7FFEO4>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Review of ICN Terminology document (draft-wissingh-icnrg-terminology-01)
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 21:52:32 -0000

When we proposed forwarding labels for Interest packets, there was a push back on using the terms ID/Locator, hence we submitted this draft where we use the terms "Application Identifier and "Network Identifier", so another term if we don’t want to use the locator terminology, the draft itself focusses on the motivation on the need for network identifiers.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-azgin-icnrg-ni-00

Towards the terminology draft, I had suggested to include this (NI or Locators) term during the offline group meeting at the last IETF meeting, but there were no supporters for this.

Regards,
Ravi

-----Original Message-----
From: icnrg [mailto:icnrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of David Oran
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 10:09 AM
To: Wissingh, B.F. <bastiaan.wissingh@tno.nl>
Cc: icnrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Review of ICN Terminology document (draft-wissingh-icnrg-terminology-01)

I was starting to review a couple of ICNRG current drafts, and saw that the term “location” is used a lot, partly to distinguish ICN from host-centric designs that name things based on their “location”.

I then peeked into the terminology draft and didn’t find a definition of “location”. While adding this might re-open some tricky conversations about topologically-sensitive names, name resolution between “location independent” and “location dependent” names etc. I think we are on balance better off by having an agreed definition of “location” in the context of ICN than waffling and not defining it.

What do folks think?

DaveO