Re: [nbs] First draft agenda

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

HI,

On 2010-10-27, at 15:33, Rémi Després wrote:
> Yes, knowing whether some OS or application implementers already are, at this early stage, interested in Name Based Sockets  can be a useful third issue.
> 
> But even if there is none today, this IMHO doesn't mean that those that are ready to spend energy to make a sound proposal should be discouraged: 
> - We know we need referrals that don't depend on addresses (addresses may be dynamic or subject to renumbering).
> - Using names for this is an alternative to other locator/identifier separation approaches.
> - It has the distinct advantage leveraging existing Internet specifications such as the DNS and IPv6 address formats, rather than departing from them.

I'm with you until here.

> For OS and Application vendors to make their an opinion, clearly explaining first what is meant by named based sockets seems a quite reasonable approach.

Here I have to disagree. We don't (normally) charter WGs in the IETF to explain technologies. We charter WGs to produce specifications so that interoperable implementations can be built. A specification is not a good way to explain a technology or motivate its adoption, that needs to come *first*.

Lars