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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 14 December 2009 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 DA0DE3A6873 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:44:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, 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 Kj0kU+i0Jul7 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f227.google.com (mail-gx0-f227.google.com [209.85.217.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D493A6820 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gxk27 with SMTP id 27so3297759gxk.7 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:43:54 -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 :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LrIzQBfFu9PhholiLvjGbV9dvXhj7DGJahLSwHe4fvM=; b=OvoJoOm29Gxi1/Fus/eGZk6ZEBstjb+rv7h5giksjDgeMORcvi0Hrz7dIHdU6MXWAE V9c0xiPxj/Q+mNzUS24iGxAF+Me4k6P+SsA/9OlLfkpBrfmE2eSeZyc/fYAoVmYKyh/g 09IgNBOaTOHvLb6eLICbzg/WcGQ6AbSxHrNuE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=rIdCJbgo+0S23SGdsRTS4UrCQG/EfsOeFfuhaus6RojJWsLroaOrXu6h0Gjym/nJIW HOUQXniKS3z7sA9/FvS8f62Bjk3xDva8j+kXhZp0XyxYk7QAuyw7MR2mGnSGCeqU7DdI zjEetAsZ1Q74ay0338FsunxvuMUxa31KhDqUc=
Received: by 10.101.163.1 with SMTP id q1mr7887724ano.67.1260819834257; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ([121.98.142.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm1644557ywd.29.2009.12.14.11.43.51 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:43:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B269571.10406@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:43:45 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
References: <5976B445-7209-4DE5-9D83-E2920265EB27@CS.UCLA.EDU> <4B25275A.4050101@informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <4B2665B9.2080903@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <4B2665B9.2080903@tony.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:44:11 -0000

On 2009-12-15 05:20, Tony Li wrote:
> Michael Menth wrote:
>> Hi Lixia,
>>
>> do mapping systems also belong to the discussed proposals? I assume
>> they do not although a lot of the complexity taken out of the routing
>> is put into them? If I am wrong, I would like to add FIRMS to the list
>> of discussed proposals:
>> http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/papers/Menth09-FIRMS.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> 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