On Apr 8, 2009, at 9:14 PM, Tony Li wrote:
Hi Dow,
I don't think this one [locator] is quite there yet since it
doesn't directly address the question of how (a) namespace
semantics and (b) the associated routing system are involved in
characterizing the name of an attachment point as a locator (or
not). I think some of this relation is implied in the language
above, but it is still fuzzy...
The definition of locator isn't supposed to involve the specific
routing system and it's not meant to specify or constrain the path
in the general case. Locators are supposed to define 'where'
something is, not 'how to get there'.
But if the "where" name does not encode *any* information about "how
to get there", then it doesn't really have any location semantics,
right?
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
