IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] Terminology

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 04 February 2010 08:25 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 703F53A697D for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 00:25:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 WxuxTRSnxSvk for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 00:25:23 -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 C61E93A695B for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 00:25:23 -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: ApsEAN4TakurR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACDM7xjh3aQDoEugkNaBA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,403,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="237662643"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Feb 2010 08:25:57 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp7005.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp7005.cisco.com [10.61.91.92]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o148PtNV017961; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 08:25:56 GMT
Message-ID: <4B6A8493.6090401@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:25:55 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RJ Atkinson <rja.lists@gmail.com>
References: <22682A2A-E506-4CB9-801F-628C6ABBC212@gmail.com> <2AA4FFC3-6484-4B6A-95A1-05D56A1118E7@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2AA4FFC3-6484-4B6A-95A1-05D56A1118E7@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IRTF Routing RG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Terminology
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:25:24 -0000

+1.

On 2/4/10 12:13 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> Earlier, Patrick Frejborg wrote:
>   
>> So I claim that hIPv4 is providing a new routing architecture -
>> it is either not a CES or a CEE - it is something else.
>>     
> I don't find the "CES" or "CEE" terms to be very meaningful,
> in that they don't really inform one about the important
> properties of any proposal.
>
> Just as Patrik disagrees with how HIPv4 has been characterised,
> I don't really agree with how ILNP has been characterised.
>
> I don't see the value in trying to continue use of those terms
> within the Routing RG context.  Probably best if we all just
> move on, and keep trying to find meaningful ways to characterise
> the various ideas floating within the RG.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ran Atkinson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email