Re: [nbs] First draft agenda

Lars Eggert <> Wed, 27 October 2010 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5F83A694A for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.953
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.654, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25msDz3HAV+M for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DFDC3A69F8 for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o9RCxPAf024942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:59:26 +0300
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.4 at
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-63-639511413; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: Lars Eggert <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:59:16 +0300
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:59:17 +0300 (EEST)
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: "" <>, Martin Stiemerling <>
Subject: Re: [nbs] First draft agenda
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Name based sockets discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:57:41 -0000


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*.