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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Several replies in one message:

On 2009-12-15 19:30, Lixia Zhang wrote:
> 
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> ......
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>   Brian
> 
> a clarification question: wonder what is the "name space" referred to in
> the above?

I was interpreting Noel to mean what we colloquially call an "address space",
whether identifier-addresses or locator-addresses. But namespace is
an abstract concept. I have a little trouble with the IEN19 definition,
since it clearly uses "name" for what we now call identifier and
"address" for what we now call locator.

On 2009-12-15 22:52, Tony Li wrote:

> Our recommendation is focused on providing an alternative routing architecture.  A mapping system is a fine component, but would not seem to provide a credible architecture by itself.

I agree, but what it means is that a routing proposal that requires a
mapping solution needs to specify it. I'm arguing that it needs to specify
it as a separable component.

On 2009-12-16 03:55, Noel Chiappa wrote:

>     >>> Also I feel it should support hierarchy, even if we don't need a
>     >>> hierarchy from the start.
> 
>     > I was thinking about a hierarchy of namespaces
> 
> To help me understand how this would work, could you give an example?

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/layers.pdf

> 
>     > Just make a couple of the basic data definitions recursive, and you've
>     > got both hierarchies.
> 
> And an example of this too...

Oh, I was just thinking in BNF terms, or defining the namespaces
like DNS does. Not intended to be a profound statement.

But it does get you to variable length addresses,
locator = prefix suffix [locator]
or something like that.

   Brian