On Wednesday 16 June 2010 at 20:34:48 RJ Atkinson sent: > 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.
You don't have a name for the location of a node, crisply in ILNP. > > 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. In the last paragraph on page 3 of ILNP Concept of Operations say: The crux of this proposal is to have different names for the identity of a node and the location of a subnetwork, with crisp semantics for each. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
