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

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 15 December 2009 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F653A6831 for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:59:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.572
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4upq93Ug0PAh for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874B83A67EF for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pxi32 with SMTP id 32so2620408pxi.15 for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:58:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qEPlBMzN+Wbf9eUDfFh4GAbghp37Fcul4aukjC72ask=; b=oX2ZGbxUw4K4wtL6ZZFarypmv239WZBtN2L7jPTUMRxE/vx+lykSLh2YYs3v6WpwQa vlimnt9LSgTUOyXN+b9Sv5FTZNkaDlHLku3lMG9xoMHJO4v/6jqNiQ3889lTfTlBNp0C lEmpCk4i7U99Qorm6Bab30w/Y2I3NV4AA7Weo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=iQ/ScITOKSid8GCJHroGb8d208joZV6+8KgFsjPvZPDfxUhRx+Z8vfZeRZr9T5xwDm zWB+5SxXylmRd68+ZeYy+adNAu5DjrN0J38dY9EQKzW7jtU0DIrYKK+gjbnvlIdK5Akn tAhF3MeorvSo3f3OnodFBgRehzZw6bUaKX630=
Received: by with SMTP id d1mr4012018rvi.24.1260845929707; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id 20sm5502777pzk.5.2009. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:58:42 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Noel Chiappa <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rrg] belated msg: further description of the recommendation process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:59:05 -0000

On 2009-12-15 10:43, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>     > From: Brian E Carpenter <>
>     > 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.
> There's an even better reason: to allow migration to new syntax (or new
> namespaces) for each type of name. Consider: it's easier to start deployment
> of a split in an existing namespace if both new namespaces have the same
> syntax as the original one. It minimizes the number of things you have to
> change, and also the cost of deployment, which makes it more likely you can
> get a positive cost/benefit on the change - without which the deployment will
> never happen. Once the split is more-or-less complete, then you can start to
> think about changing the syntax, or having a new (parallel in function)
> namespace.


> Or, at least, that's my theory - and I'm sticking to it! :-)
>     > Also I feel it should support hierarchy, even if we don't need a
>     > hierarchy from the start.
> Hierarchy in the names in the namespaces, or a hierarchy _of_ namespaces?
> Sorry, wasn't quite clear from your brief comment.

I was thinking about a hierarchy of namespaces, but in fact we probably
need the generality to support hierarchical names too. I don't think that
needs to make the simple case inefficient. Just make a couple of the basic
data definitions recursive, and you've got both hierarchies.