Subject: Re: [rrg] Scalable Internet

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:13:51 -0500 (EST)

> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>

    > There is outstanding discussion as to whether this identifier is, or
    > must be, or may be, the network attachment point, the network stack,
    > the transport stack, or the application. I tend to be in the family
    > that wants to name the network/transport stack. I tend to treat the
    > cases whee the network attachment point needs to be named ... as a
    > special case which can be treated as a stack associated with that
    > entity.

??? I would have thought that the locator named the NAP?

I mean, going by the usual way of analyzing the problem (i.e. considering what
classes of objects needs names, and what the syntax and semantics of those
names ought to be), it would seem to me most economical to name one class of
thing (network/transport stack) with a location-independent name, and the
other (NAP) with a location-dependent name... That way, both (important)
classes of things have names... and in each case, a name with the semantics
most suited to the uses were are likely to put it to.

	Noel

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:21:02 -0500

The note i was responding to stated that the ID named the NAP.
If it had said that the locator named the NAP, then the only quibble 
would have been that some folks argue that the locator only needs to 
name the subnet / link on which the NAP is located.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:57:17 +0900

I'd joint the camp to define

      ID           network/transport
      locator    NAP

This is because one host can have multiple NAP or interfaces. NAP is where a
host touches the network and so is to be used to locate/reach/route to the
host.

Also, I'd prefer to define

      ID          host

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>wrote:

> If it had said that the locator named the NAP, then the only quibble would
> have been that some folks argue that the locator only needs to name the
> subnet / link on which the NAP is located.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
> Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>>  _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>

-- 
Regards,

DY
http://cnu.kr/~dykim