On 10 Jun 2010, at 21:34 , Dae Young KIM wrote:
> So, basically, I wouldn't need any terminology than 'address' which has been
> out there and used without problem(?) for forty years or more.
The fundamental disagreement you and I have is your assertion/
belief above that the existing overloaded semantics of the
IP address are "without problem for forty years or more".
If we ignore the lack of 40 years since the initial definition
of IP itself, I believe there is actually pretty broad consensus,
both within this RG, and also within the routing/addressing parts
of the IETF, that the current overloaded semantics are indeed
the root of multiple problems. The RG doesn't have consensus
on the best engineering approach to resolve those issues,
but that is a separate question from where the problems originate.
I've rummaged around in a reasonable literature search,
and as near as I can tell, the earliest description of
these problems caused by overloaded semantics dates back
to 29 July 1977 when [IEN-1] was published. More recently,
a belief among the IAB Routing & Addressing Workshop folks
and the IAB generally that overloaded semantics of the IP
address was a significant problem caused this RG being
re-chartered about 2 years back [RFC-4984].
(Now, all that noted, I will observe that a real effort was made
to make the Terminology poll neutral with respect to a range
of proposals (e.g. LISP).)
Yours,
Ran
PS: To find [IEN-1] online, do a web search for "ien001.pdf".
It is only available in PDF these days, not text/plain.
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
