Re: [rrg] Terminology

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Thu, 04 February 2010 14:49 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 A2C013A6822 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 06:49:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, 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 4h4u7cMHlFUl for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 06:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FB63A6768 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 06:49:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws11 with SMTP id 11so1256995vws.13 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:50:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Gush8elLkBZpBbbrq+baQEcw0fqjEqCLVIAuBaLQE7M=; b=fELUGjSJCB+TxRZNDb2cJnq7VZVcVD1D9FxIR05WpiO/F9kqegrqaL0rTHw5G+7BVZ LFFj7JjhR5Fxk3dWsKOqTf3RXP2BbmIbehlhuvhVdO3hI6mVfW6948pXmjGWFYPIk+bv P7pVr/bOdGIRYyqZz9RB/JPlKifse4U+VhL6k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=qMx5JBIMVwTdCWo5J1NRc3s5uUf0nf704PUYKS7ELCcnX9dvCz3SrJORrU7f0nOBel DnYAWyCCSAx7VKc/DCxjq/Ml5Jiqfx604Fkd/9IL+dyyNSQHwldoGjEWlo8ez7gsqrLj WSeqtMzYWDBCt8ghmFD09Eyz80pgpieLoKQBs=
Received: by 10.220.89.205 with SMTP id f13mr2103238vcm.17.1265295034232; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbrim-mbp.local (198-135-0-233.cisco.com [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 37sm1342647vws.7.2010.02.04.06.50.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B6ADEB5.8010900@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:50:29 -0500
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.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: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <C78F8E7D.3D4%tony.li@tony.li> <4B6AD782.7050506@gmail.com> <4B6AD920.8030007@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B6AD920.8030007@joelhalpern.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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 14:49:56 -0000

Joel M. Halpern allegedly wrote on 02/04/2010 09:26 EST:
> I believe it has now been demonstrated that the terms CEE and CES are
> being used by different people to mean different things.
> That is even less useful than when I thought I knew what they meant.

Weren't they written down, in a Lixia et al. draft?

> PS: The statement from Robin recently leads me to conclude that I don't
> even know what he means by the terms CEE, and CES.  And he coined them.
> "The CES vs. CEE distinction does not arise from whether hosts are
> altered or not.  It arises from the fundamentally different
> mechanisms which are used by these two different types of
> architecture to achieve scalable routing."

That makes sense to me: the two different approaches it distinguishes
between are to separate edge routing/addressing from non-edge and
eliminating the distinction.  But that's just one criterion, and not
every approach benefits from its use.

Scott