On 2009-01-08 17:19, Scott Brim wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote on 1/7/09 10:32 PM:
>> Fred,
>>
>> That's my mental model, except that I think of the locators
>> as LOC0, LOC1, etc to allow for the inevitable hierarchy.
>> I had also assumed there would need to be a hierarchy of maps,
>> with HIT<->LOC0 as the lowest level map, but Scott Brim obviously
>> has another model in mind (I need to think a bit more before
>> replying to Scott).
>>
>> Brian
>
> What HIP gives you is an identifier that may be used for many things.
> An HI can be, but does not have to be, part of the process of initially
> finding a locator for an endpoint. For example, I can go straight from
> domain name to locator (which actually might be an agent / proxy /
> rendezvous point), and then validate identities via some other means.
Assuming I deem the DNS trustworthy, it seems much more natural
to treat the DNS as the source of an HI, and then for the locator to be
looked up as a function of the HI. I'm not saying your model doesn't work,
but surely the HI is fundamental and has universal validity, and the locator
(any of the locators) is transient and has non-universal scope? So starting
with a locator lookup seems funny.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
