On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:36 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Scott Brim <[email protected]>
wrote:
I thought the concepts came out very clear in the end. See our
definitions on the wiki. How to implement identification functions,
e.g. with stack names or what, wasn't resolved, but we know what the
classes of functions are so RRG can model it.
Hi Scott,
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/RRGTerminology
I thought they were crap and I wasn't alone. Heck, the locator
definition is so vague it barely means anything at all. More to the
point, it means virtually anything the reader wants it to mean,
regardless of what the writer intended. Do you really want to risk
using those terms when more precise words can convey your meaning?
Hi Bill,
personally I share your view that the current text on that page is
inadequate.
I'd also like to suggest that we take constructive actions to help
improve it.
I recall we made a good start on the terminology definition at SF IETF
early this year, the slides is at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/74/slides/RRG-6.pdf
in particular slide 5 was resulted from the group discussion, which is
copied below:
How many different things
That are needed in the context of routing scalability?
1. IP prefixes that are in the DFZ routing table
2. IP prefixes that are not in the DFZ
– Example: this thing that LISP called “EID”, but really
not an end point identifier
3. “endpoint” identifier
– Outside the routing system (local or global)
– Debates going on whether calling it “Stack ID”
4. At least one additional identifier needs to be defined
– Either identical to #3, or closer to application than #3
At the time the plan was to turn this into an internet draft. Maybe we
could pick up from here?
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
