Re: [External] Request for information - Challenges in routing related to semantic addressing

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Mon, 15 February 2021 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB863A0D25; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:25:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.302
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 frTs2qBYiQoN; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:25:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96C383A0D24; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:25:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id v7so9569302wrr.12; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:25:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=snO2qyOWm3v6N2lY8MsrxtWShHU5HzMP5ghpKxHh5+k=; b=F6sY1vMIkXAQKHTXFSmDr+P4KlIOENZN5hc8WnzdpvGSqaV7HmTLRBgWK4cknyPu5h zNX8xBE24MxiCjRHVvSWbxrlzwocabAS0Yk4rt3dQpVlsz7sp3fUAm+IcUUVTeFobvyv TdDg9utm/lCdlcQGdSe1OaDmbIFiEgMmzZwgE6chkgnIEZ6dEbPmrgDL0XTITjAQBhT/ E4P7Yz3Tz9y3pifYK1GPwnhVvTzuys0gvbmT0uH5uQkaqnk7ThpywjbU9wVJZpSWWRJu ZRpU0ED3o7BzaJvLnrgvrxb6SDTgJD2DyIQ+XKFNCMGCIr6A9KPIonstKCiFbP3lx98H bCqA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=snO2qyOWm3v6N2lY8MsrxtWShHU5HzMP5ghpKxHh5+k=; b=JqiQMAw3eLh29yMeVqOOzOZe2VrskZ4ajDo2crM/nht/Nm5Xgqrre8tz+kpR3d9zzy HFrmwOQiD4fk+iBBf7LTnlAywset4SLMH8HMAapsif/ref/eW5IWnJCmQDVwkv7C1NGO saVlFmDoDo9KBctoLEvB3FFt++FpzkM/IWnHYart4btTfHdIbNjScD9pP60zSd0UaQmM k7fHplpkRESwF6ZnjdIyvLDQ0Ir6r1PrMcAq7rafsawGMDX6gzxjceKh26hJBlo6i8G5 FrTrqR2mbheyce6l3QJ57+esy43QFj1Q9D0nizieDDCWlhHlfEDFhJbK3xUckUlBEkaS qAAQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532H8jR2JhygG2GA1DAU8uvpFbjT86tECq2mZTMEumxkJuQdCvoG jHlxOjz/u035rWsBESsIiYc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz4EDkie3etrKG4MzkrZlBgHqN6pUfDkA2uBZCIRZEMJ8rV7tgIJtSksHvwSoeWHbG0vbMzqw==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:628c:: with SMTP id k12mr19182584wru.316.1613406306992; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.8.102] ([185.69.145.254]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k16sm3854911wmi.37.2021.02.15.08.25.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: [External] Request for information - Challenges in routing related to semantic addressing
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f040717b-f099-92fb-be48-bce59a587b5b@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:25:05 +0000
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "King, Daniel" <d.king@lancaster.ac.uk>, adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org" <draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org>, "routing-discussion@ietf.org" <routing-discussion@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8DA7681B-E2F5-476E-9949-98947A542F80@gmail.com>
References: <02d401d701fd$25905a90$70b10fb0$@olddog.co.uk> <CADnDZ88mA7B_a1MUYnXSviD5wjNL3sbqaqrbK0u3NXi6OqeNAA@mail.gmail.com> <CWXP265MB2087CD3D4A4B7EB370EBD534D6889@CWXP265MB2087.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <f040717b-f099-92fb-be48-bce59a587b5b@joelhalpern.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/hm7Aw0ppofJzXfX3x5bIV5jE6ek>
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list <routing-discussion.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/routing-discussion/>
List-Post: <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:25:11 -0000

Joel

You have to start somewhere. Semantic routing is a staring point for a concept that clearly we need to research and gradually understand. If at the end of the process a better name emerges, no one will be precious about the word semantic. However for now we need to understand the mapping of the requirement to the need and then to determine the optimum name. For now, the term semantic routing seems to describe the direction even if it does not fully describe the destination.

Stewart

> On 15 Feb 2021, at 16:10, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> I can't argue with an effort to define the term "semantic routing".
> However, I would be very concerned by an effort to define goals for it before we have such a definition.  Depending upon the definition, the answer may be that it is a bad idea.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 2/15/2021 5:40 AM, King, Daniel wrote:
>> Hi AB,
>> Thanks for scanning and commenting.
>> The I-D has bubbled for a while after seeing various discussions on contextual and semantic routing I-Ds, mostly clean-slate approaches. Although the initial literature review highlighted some common objectives across proposals and implementations, I struggled to find anything that defined "semantic routing" and goals that we could use/reference. I likely missed prior research that provides a useful definition. If not, then I agree that having the IRTF research community document a description for "semantic routing" and common goals, would be beneficial.
>> BR, Dan.
>> *From:*Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
>> *Sent:* 15 February 2021 06:37
>> *To:* adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
>> *Cc:* routing-discussion@ietf.org; draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* [External] Re: Request for information - Challenges in routing related to semantic addressing
>> *This email originated outside the University. Check before clicking links or attachments.*
>> Hi Adrian,
>> Thanks for this informational draft, I also think it is important for this list, however, I think I need to have some primary definitions by the authors in this draft, to define meanings of the main objective items (addressing, semantic routing, etc), so then it will be easier to survey and overview.
>> Best Regards,
>> AB
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 1:41 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We have just posted "Challenges for the Internet Routing Infrastructure Introduced by Changes in Address Semantics" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing/ <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-king-irtf-challenges-in-routing%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cd.king%40lancaster.ac.uk%7C0789ec4da3bd49e47c8408d8d17c22c9%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C0%7C0%7C637489678393825383%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=zmZnEd9jRMv%2BdH%2FcFlyz7yBK09JYQFDuHTBmoQnV4w8%3D&reserved=0>).
>> This IRTF draft is an attempt to survey the issues and existing research related to the impact on the routing system of the many and varied proposals to add semantics to IP (chiefly IPv6) addresses. Where we are unable to find existing research, we are trying to collect the research questions that we think need to be addressed [sic].
>> Obviously, this is just a -00 version of the draft and it has a long way to go both in terms of clarity and literature search.
>> We asked the IRTF to help us with comments and thoughts. In particular, if anyone is aware of any ongoing or published research in the area of semantic addressing or the consequences in routing, we would like to hear about it.
>> This document is deliberately NOT discussing:
>> -       Are these address semantic schemes wise or crazy?
>> -       Is it legal to place semantics in addresses?
>> -       Is it even possible to achieve overloading of addresses?
>> What we are doing is zooming in on any existing research of the impact on the routing system and, absent that, to list out the questions that should be answered by research.
>> Alvaro suggested that routing-discussion would be a good place to copy this request for help.
>> Response direct to the authors or on this list (until we're told it is not appropriate for this list šŸ˜‰)
>> Best,
>> Adrian (for the authors)
>> _______________________________________________
>> routing-discussion mailing list
>> routing-discussion@ietf.org <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frouting-discussion&data=04%7C01%7Cd.king%40lancaster.ac.uk%7C0789ec4da3bd49e47c8408d8d17c22c9%7C9c9bcd11977a4e9ca9a0bc734090164a%7C0%7C0%7C637489678393835329%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=3Hw%2B88OLxy6v9NQ5D4rAWyzS%2FAd9NC9gFKao3jGVce4%3D&reserved=0>
>> _______________________________________________
>> routing-discussion mailing list
>> routing-discussion@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
> 
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion