First, MANY thanks for re-focusing your notes around separate numbered issues and for being specific in quoting previous text that you are concerned about.
(I really think this will be a much more productive conversation for everyone. :-) I am splitting your 3 comments into separate threads, so topics don't get confused accidentally. Earlier, Toni Stoev wrote: > Issue #1, documentation: Name for the location of a node > > ILNP Concept of Operations says: > The crux of this proposal is to have different names for the > identity of a node and the location of a node, with crisp > semantics for each. > > On Saturday 12 June 2010 at 10:34:52 Tony Li sent: > > There is no name for the location of a node in ILNP. There is no need > > for one as long as there is some subnetwork point of attachment > > resolution (i.e., ND, ARP) based on the L3 locator and identifier. > > The statement of having different node identity/location names is misleading. The Identifier names a node, but does not name its location. The Locator names a subnetwork, but does not name a node. A node that is connected to the Internet using ILNP has one or more Locators. A node not connected to the Internet (e.g. because of some temporary outage) still has identity, but does not have a Locator because it has no Internet location. This all is pretty clearly described in draft-rja-ilnp-intro, and it is consistent with and supportive of the claim that the name for a node is different from the name for a subnetwork location. I'm not clear on what edit you would like made, nor am I clear where (e.g. document & section/page) you would like an edit made. Thanks, Ran Atkinson _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
