Honest. I'm really sorry to have to send this query. In looking over various archives and documents, on the matter of separating node address from node identifier, I have not been able to find or develop a clear summary of the reasons the identifier cannot be a domain name.
There are plenty of notes assuming that a new name space is needed. And there are plenty of statements that say a new name space is needed because it will make certain things better. But I have not seen a clear summary of what will be made better nor a clear argument against using domain names, as the stable, public, address-independent end-point identifier. I recall seeing a note from Christian Huitema that raised some interesting concerns about using domain names, but I haven't been able to recover it. If the identifier is used only occasionally, such as at the start of an association and during occasional state changes, then it is acceptable to have the string be a bit long. If it must be in every packet, clearly it needs to be short. If the identifier needs to be in every packet, then why? The string must be globally assigned only if it is needed for some sort of rendezvous or third-party validation effort. Otherwise, the string can be local to the association context, in the manner of purpose-built keys. So a new, global identifier space seems to be needed only if every packet is subject to some sort of rendezvous or third-party validation. What am I missing? /d -- Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
