Re: [nbs] First draft agenda

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.

Regards,
RD

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
> nbs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nbs