Subject: RE: [Crisp] Nesting queries redux

From: "Tim Christensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:08:54 -0500

> Shane Kerr wrote:
> > Andrew Newton wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the need for 
> this query?
> > 
> > 
> > I don't think so. To me it seems like the sort of thing 
> that you would
> > want to do, but since no user has asked for it (AFAIK) 
> perhaps it isn't 
> > really needed. :)

<chiming in late, apologies>

I don't think you have a misunderstanding of the need.. But I ought to
clarify the thinking that got me to the original LLA thought.

My thinking was:

Given #1: One (arguably, *the most*) significant use of the 'most
specific' query for a given [/32,/128] query is to find out who's
most-directly responsible for a node (for a variety of motives,
assigning none here).
Given #2: The current proposal permits users to issue *range* queries
specified in a variety of ways.
Assertion: It's better (when feasible) to provide more functionality
than less functionality, because users will tend to find positive ways
to exploit it in the name of innovation, research, or the search for the
meaning of life etc.
(or, conversely, it's less desirable to *restrict* functionality than
not restrict functionality unless one has a good reason to do so)

So, if you take the first 2 givens in light of the assertion, a
range-query most-specific makes sense. We have that, but only sort-of,
in the existing document.

I started thinking about what a range-query most-specific really means,
for the variety of motives in #1 above, and realized that many of them
are interested in *all* of the most-specifics, irrespective of whether
they're fully inclusive (which is what the existing range-most-specific
accomplishes).  This led to the LLA, or
'most-specific-inclusive-for-ranges', or whatever-we're-calling-it-today
query.

If we collectively reject the Assertion above, or if it's determined
that the LLA is either unfeasible or unnecessary, then I would agree
that we remove the LLA from the query set.

Your and Shane's points that, given two discontiguous but
assumed-to-be-close nodes might 'trap' an un-related network between
them that you (as a user) don't care about, seems true; that's always
possible.  Hmm.

Given that case, and the (extended) discussion about the utility of this
query, I have some questions:

1. Is the above assertion a reasonable-enough argument for implementing
LLA, irrespective of the lack of documented specific use-cases from
users (whose input we frankly have not seen vis-a-vis participation in
this discussion)?

2. Is it unfeasible to implement LLA? (note: I don't think so, and I've
worked it out btw, can post later).

3. Does availability of an LLA query unnecessarily confuse the issue in
that it would be (inordinately) likely that it would be mal-queried and
return (inordinately) superfluous results, thus making it 'bad'? (e.g.
trap query ranges not really implicated in an abuse situation, etc.)

Apologies for this discussion happening late in the game, but I wanted
to summarize my thoughts as, perhaps, a seed for discussion in the WG.
 
Tim

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp

---

From: "Tim Christensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:15:56 -0500

Mea culpa:

I now realize there is no 'most specific' query. 

S/most/one level less/

But then that query has different meaning when used in the range  context. 

Tim

-----Original Message-----
   >From: "Tim Christensen"<[email-masked]>
   >Sent: 11/9/04 11:08:54 AM
   >To: "'David Blacka'"<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>
   >Subject: RE: [Crisp] Nesting queries redux
   >
   >> Shane Kerr wrote:
   >> > Andrew Newton wrote:
   >> > 
   >> >>
   >> >>

[Message truncated. Tap Edit->Mark for Download to get remaining portion.]