Subject: Re: [rrg] Scalable Internet

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:12:26 -0500 (EST)

> From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>

    > noel can explain a bunch more of this, but.. I think 'name' in his
    > context isnt 'mail.lcs.mit.edu' but rather: "192.168.2.2" in today'sn
    > parlance

Yes, I was using 'name' in the very generic sense of 'an identifying label
for an object, of no particular syntax or semantics'. As I wrote in
http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt (Section 2 'Terminology of
Naming and Binding'):

  The terms "object" and "name" are hopefully self-explanatory: it is crucial
  to differentiate between the thing itself, and any identifier (in the
  generic sense) by which we refer to it. In this paper, whenever the term
  "name" is used, unless otherwise explicitly indicated, the meaning given to
  it is the generic one of "an identifier (of no specific syntax or
  properties) for an object".

  Thus, the phrase "name of a host" does *not* refer to an existing system of
  printable strings (e.g "lcs.mit.edu"), or somesuch; it refers, instead, to
  the abstract concept of an identifier for a host. (The term "host-name" is
  used to refer to such printable strings, at the possible risk of some
  confusion, because it is of long-standing use in the networking community.)

  This may seem confusing (and some might suggest use of a different term for
  "name"), but the use of the term "name" in this manner is established in
  the literature (along with subsidiary terminology such as "namespace"), and
  while use of the term "name" has perhaps been confused in the networking
  community, it seems a major distraction to try and tackle that issue now.

	Noel

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:54:47 +0900

Very clear. I totally agree to this.

Whether a name be numeric, non-numeric, alpha-numeric is not an issue; I
used to teach my student this way, too. In fact, string name and a numeric
id is the same thing.

OK, people are now wiser, so I'd also conform to this generic use of the
term 'name'.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]>wrote:

> http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt<http://www.chiappa.net/%7Ejnc/tech/endpoints.txt>(Section 2 'Terminology of
> Naming and Binding'):
>

-- 
Regards,

DY
http://cnu.kr/~dykim