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

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Tue, 15 December 2009 09:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
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 B71EC3A6819 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:52:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.32
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 8f04Uw1vtdK9 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from QMTA01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000B93A67B3 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.43]) by QMTA01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id HMqY1d0020vp7WLA1MsAtc; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:10 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.110] ([24.6.155.154]) by OMTA05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id HMsM1d0023L8a8Q8RMsNCy; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:22 +0000
Message-ID: <4B275C53.6040205@tony.li>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:52:19 -0800
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU> <4B25275A.4050101@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <4B2665B9.2080903@tony.li> <4B269571.10406@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B269571.10406@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rrg@irtf.org, Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>
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: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:52:38 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> 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.
> 
> 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. Also I feel it should support hierarchy, even if
> we don't need a hierarchy from the start.



Brian,

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.

Tony