Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Tue, 04 December 2012 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A42E21F8CA0 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:18:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XJLhN-riZBwc for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:18:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:43:76:96:30:16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF95121F8C97 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:18:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.11]) by qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id XSpW1k05u0EPchoA1XJt2Q; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:18:53 +0000
Received: from [10.155.35.198] ([128.107.239.234]) by omta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id XXGe1k00C547xYo8MXGgs0; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:16:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <50BE3EEB.20700@internet2.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:16:37 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F502F124-32EC-40B9-9C3F-4E2DF5337B62@tony.li>
References: <20121112234012.05F8E18C0CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <CAFgODJcP1zvwRJukJdnqjSR-78XAMB1nSxL32gjUQB+NqpgESg@mail.gmail.com> <50A18F75.8060001@joelhalpern.com> <CAFgODJcDAzaYPrWFEJhgeCjnN_M9tdd+pdHTiccd=Dz=1mYrLg@mail.gmail.com> <EC8FD781-E416-4AE6-BA99-F74FE2DDA14D@tony.li> <CAFgODJfMBJBxNJ_M1_L=K0f2DpbZvzOBUgLZ6sT+-y+JevGeSg@mail.gmail.com> <27E72BC2-C84D-469F-9667-7A749567B477@tony.li> <09cc01cdc173$71323cd0$5396b670$@huitema.net> <03E5ABD7-EA3C-4C69-B3F9-16C8B6C6E512@tony.li> <50BE3EEB.20700@internet2.edu>
To: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1354648733; bh=uLYZHx8j5+K/TlGPMg/46XyEaPKuicwCOtaBFCuNXDw=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Message-Id:To; b=jdMHN3DKhz2fq6bW175DnyoCEzzLT1cdmdl3dQFrBns4ck3bRbskQbu2bc+A2/7o3 eUn0KbaDNGY/Dju2xDScKDBl3tkScf53vpzZU/z/MFV5RvITh5sa5/Su6pgHeL7M0R xYwELZE76oA8Op2lETmLCtU+/MgGKV+tMba2eV4YzRhYh7YgVt38whnwNqd1ZMYTJe MQmP2sM/6yq7tOKtXs93O/Z/c0yOuGIaVOqVnLfYgHd60X/uzl7y2CcKVDUwTryMKw 1/jAtTmL9DCckirvWvxEE13sXOB9bis8Wz8jz/iN3SiUEPWSeGooe3L5MatVKJ640d jLvYdsQNvvm0w==
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:18:54 -0000

On Dec 4, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>; wrote:

> I don't know who "they" is but applications that want to be robust
> across network changes have their own identity-related functions.  They
> have done their own loc/id split, for the identities that matter to them
> (app/session level), and use it to sustain sessions.  They don't care
> about or need what this list is talking about.


Hi Scott,

Doesn't that strike you as a layering violation?  Shouldn't a stack shield applications from having to create these mechanisms?

Regards,
Tony