Re: [nbs] First draft agenda

Rémi Després <> Wed, 27 October 2010 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 390CF3A67CF for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.535
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.414, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gZ9vdPePJcou for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:32:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F2A3A69CD for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 05:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1C5697000084; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:33:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9B3AD700009A; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:33:51 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:33:50 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Lars Eggert <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
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 12:32:13 -0000

Hi, Lars,

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.

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.


Le 27 oct. 2010 à 08:32, Lars Eggert a écrit :

> Hi,
> On 2010-10-26, at 15:26, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
>> It seems that we have two bigger areas to be handled separately during the BoF:
>> - API issues
>> - Stack Change Proposals (below the API doing all the magic)
> I'd like to add a third issue, which to me is as important: where are the OS and application implementors that want the NBS extensions? I have no doubt that we could specify the technical details needed to make NBS work; I wonder who would care if we did.
> Lars_______________________________________________
> nbs mailing list