Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption

[Dae Young KIM <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Florin Coras <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Dae Young KIM wrote:
> > Put it in another way using the terms in this community:
> >
> >     - Do routing with ID.
> >     - Do away with Locator. It's redundant. It should belong to the layer
> > below. And locator's change in every segment of networks.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Dae Young KIM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> Well, then, speaking in IEN-19 terminology your doing name/address
> separation through DNS, no? Or, considering the previous example you are
> using DNS for mapping between the name (Noel) and what you call ID (the
> mentioned address). I now suppose that in order to provide mobility the
> name (Noel) will be used in sockets instead of what you call ID. If this
> is the case the first foreseeable problem is that you break all the
> current applications.
>

No, I use ID. Mobile devices possess unchanging ID.

>
> Also I think that "locator" would better describe what you call an "ID"
> for the simple reason that it indicates a fixed destination in the
> network ( in your example was the address of a house).
>

Well, I think I'm from a total foreign world than the community here, and
also maybe not consistent in my own statement in compromising with
terminology.

Talking about DNS. In one model of mine, ID is also globally unique. (note:
in further elaboration if situations permit, I can argue that there's no
architectural reason why ID should be globally unique. It can also be local.
But, not to scare or annoy people too much which I've already have, I'll
stick to my model #1 where ID is globally unique).

So, there's one-to-one correspondence between the name (URI) given to DNS
and the ID it returns. Redundant. However, using ling string text of DNS
names is not a convenient way of carrying all along. You use ID instead.

Or seen in another way, I'm looking for an application or a content by the
DNS name. But that App or content should reside in some tengable(?) box to
reach to. So, the address (or ID) of that tangible box (or the abstract
stack construct or the host or the node..) is the ID that I use in my
communication. Once I get their with my ID, then a local pointers (like
port-id, socket ect.) will point me exactly to the App entity or content I'm
trying to reach.

(Was then my analogy of Noel vs name and ID vs street address already a
wrong one..?)

-- 
Regards,

DY
http://cnu.kr/~dykim