Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process

Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU> Tue, 15 December 2009 06:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CB53A6810 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:29:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pJ6UcfAQgNst for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:29:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F9D3A67EE for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:29:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263E939E80F5; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:28:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B3a5FpXTmRDt; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:28:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (cpe-98-151-23-234.socal.res.rr.com [98.151.23.234]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 172B639E80D9; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:28:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <5B8DB465-0CD5-4556-84A7-8B7F34AA823D@CS.UCLA.EDU>
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B269571.10406@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:28:46 -0800
References: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU> <4B25275A.4050101@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <4B2665B9.2080903@tony.li> <4B269571.10406@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:29:02 -0000

On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 2009-12-15 05:20, Tony Li wrote:
>> Michael Menth wrote:
>>> Hi Lixia,
>>>
>>> do mapping systems also belong to the discussed proposals? I assume
>>> they do not although a lot of the complexity taken out of the  
>>> routing
>>> is put into them? If I am wrong, I would like to add FIRMS to the  
>>> list
>>> of discussed proposals:
>>> http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/papers/Menth09-FIRMS.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Mapping systems are obviously a component of a solution but are not  
>> by
>> themselves a solution.  To be considered seriously, they should be  
>> used
>> in conjunction with some network layer solution.
>
> Hmm. Don't you think that to some extent these should be orthogonal?

again strictly personal opinion: I think the two can be separable  
components but one does not exist independently from the other -- in  
a  rough sense I agree with Tony that mapping alone does not make a  
solution proposal.

> A mapping mechanism needs to meet the specific requirements of a  
> network
> layer mechanism, but that doesn't require the two to be irrevocably
> bound to each other.
>
> I have a feeling that the mapping system should be very general in
> nature, in case the first cut at either the locator or identifier  
> space
> proves to fall short. Also I feel it should support hierarchy, even if
> we don't need a hierarchy from the start.
>
>    Brian

I really hesitate to say that I've been old enough (dont feel that way  
anyway:) that I have seen a number of times in the past the attempts  
for solutions that would be "very general in nature". Do not recall  
any of those succeeded particularly well...

There is some basic difference between things that are minimal in  
design (e.g. IP) vs those that are very general in nature.

Lixia