> Darrel, > > The definitions offered by Albert and seconded by Dino is clear and succinct. > This because they make blanket statements about the EID being independent of > locator semantics and the RLOC being independent of identifier semantics. > > By contrast, the RFC 6830 definitions of EID and RLOC are closer to being > technically correct. This is because the hedge around the issue of whether > the EID is really devoid of locator semantics. Sadly, the RFC 6830 > definitions never really spell out the degree to which EIDs can carry locator > semantics. Also, the RFC 6830 definitions are verbose and difficult to parse. > > As a WG, we need to come to consensus on this issue and document it in a > manner that is comprehensible to newcomers reading the document.
Let's have descriptions where they are needed and formal definitions in the specs that were already published. And we should have the intro document make the descriptions more coarser than the technical definitions in the specs. Agree? Dino > > > Ron > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 5:38 PM >> To: Ronald Bonica >> Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); [email protected]; LISP mailing list list >> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 2) >> >> I believe the satisfactory answer is the one that ended up in the definitions >> section of RFC 6830. >> >> -D >> On Aug 11, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Darrel, >>> >>> Yes, we have. Sadly, I don't recall every having seen a satisfactory answer >> on the mailing list. Can you point me to one? >>> >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Darrel Lewis (darlewis) [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:29 PM >>>> To: Ronald Bonica >>>> Cc: Darrel Lewis (darlewis); [email protected]; LISP mailing list >>>> list >>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 2) >>>> >>>> Ron, >>>> >>>> It strikes me that we've had discussions on what an EID is many, many >>>> times before on this list. Perhaps looking at those archived >>>> conversations would be useful. >>>> >>>> -Darrel >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 11, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Albert, >>>>> >>>>> Your definition misses one small but important point. The degree to >>>>> which >>>> an EID carries topological information depends largely upon the >>>> observer's location. >>>>> >>>>> For example, assume that a LISP site is served by two XTRs and both >>>>> XTRs >>>> go down. Nodes within the site can still communicate with one >>>> another, even though no device that is operating has a LOCATOR. In >>>> this case, where does topological information come from? >>>>> >>>>> Also, when an EID is advertised into the global Internet by a PITR, >>>>> does it >>>> continue to be an EID? If so, does it continue to be devoid of >>>> location semantics? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Albert Cabellos [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 11:49 AM >>>>>> To: Ronald Bonica >>>>>> Cc: LISP mailing list list >>>>>> Subject: Re: [lisp] draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-04 (Part 2) >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ron >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The following text is lifted from Section 6.1. At best, it is difficult >>>>>>> to >> parse. >>>>>> At worst, it is incorrect. Is there a better way to distinguish >>>>>> between an IED and a LOC? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What about stating that RLOCs are topologically assigned to network >>>>>> attachment points while EIDs are independent of the topology and >>>>>> used to identify devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> Albert >>>>>> >>>>>>> Rn >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The second key concept is that if one wants to be as >>>>>>> forward-looking as >>>>>> possible, conceptually one should think of the two kinds of names >>>>>> (EIDs and >>>>>> RLOCs) as naming different classes of entities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On the one hand, EIDs are used to name nodes - or rather, their >>>>>>> end- end >>>>>> communication entities. RLOC(s), on the other hand, name interfaces, >> i.e. >>>>>> places to which the system of routers sends packets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This distinction, the formal recognition of different kinds of >>>>>>> entities >>>>>> ("endpoints" and interfaces), and their association with the two >>>>>> different classes of names, is also important. Clearly recognizing >>>>>> interfaces and endpoints as distinctly separate classes of objects >>>>>> is another improvement to the existing Internet" architecture." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> lisp mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp >>> > > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
