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

Scott Brim <Scott.Brim@gmail.com> Mon, 14 December 2009 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Scott.Brim@gmail.com>
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 BB4CF3A6827 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:51:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.936
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.936 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.663, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vouuOAjmOJEz for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D93D28C150 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:51:54 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAPMlJktAZnwN/2dsb2JhbACSEbA0hymGKohphCsE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,396,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="228719665"
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Dec 2009 19:51:40 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (bxb-vpn3-815.cisco.com [10.86.251.47]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nBEJpes1007901 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:51:40 GMT
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:51:34 -0500
From: Scott Brim <Scott.Brim@gmail.com>
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20091214195134.GS681@cisco.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Scott Brim <Scott.Brim@gmail.com>, rrg@irtf.org
References: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU> <4B25275A.4050101@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <4B2665B9.2080903@tony.li> <4B269571.10406@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B269571.10406@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:51:54 -0000

Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter on Tue, Dec 15, 2009 08:43:45AM +1300:
> > 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?
> 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.

Yes.  With a clear interface defined.

> 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. 

Or one could use multiple interoperating mapping systems, so that
sites could use whichever suited their needs.  (The key is
interoperating).