Yes the summary is good and thank you for that. Generally the idea is to agree on basic terminology, concepts, and start building from there. Drivers/building blocks seem to be critically important, e.g. the notion of molecules and atoms helped to produce a constructive model of the world. Similarly defining the "Internet atoms" could lead to a robust theory guiding the implementation.
Concerns about continuity, IPv4 transition to IPv6 as important as they are nevertheless they are not a priority to RRG. A smooth transition becomes a logical extension of the "correct" theory about the "natural" architecture of the Internet. As to the guiding economic principle(s) it is just nice to have. It will become obvious from the "correct" theory anyway and we can drop this subject completely if it helps to speed up the discussion. Thanks, Peter --- On Sat, 4/19/08, Lixia Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Lixia Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [RRG] RRG process clarification > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: "rrg" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, April 19, 2008, 3:39 AM > On Apr 18, 2008, at 5:27 AM, Peter Sherbin wrote: > >> We need to first come to some agreement on the > very highest > >> levetl branches in the decision tree (e.g., do we > do map-and-encap or > >> translation or ???),... > > > > This sounds good and in line with the original > expectations of RRG. > > It looks that the initial step is to define drivers or > building > > blocks (the Internet atoms - "iats" - if you > will). Next would be to > > agree on how drivers interact (or how we want them to > interact) thus > > outlining an architecture. > > > > There were several attempts to list drivers and major > concepts such > > as location ID; name ID; what physical item must have > a location ID; > > which items must bear a name ID; location ID > space/structure; name > > ID space/structure; behavior of items with name IDs; > role of items > > with location IDs; a wireline connectivity is a > private instance of > > generally mobile world; etc. > > What I gathered from the above: > - a clearly defined set of terminology is critically > important > (I saw fair number of "ID"s in a pretty short > paragraph:-) > > - the terminology definition, in turn, critically depend on > reaching > agreement on a set of basic concepts. > (e.g. is a wireline connectivity a special case of > generally mobile > world) > > - what falls into the basic concepts depends on the scope > of the design > (e.g. the overall Internet architecture, vs. the routing > architecture > with a clear understanding of its relations to the other > parts) > > > > Formulating a general principle such as "a sender > of the data bears > > costs of the data delivery to the final destination > over the > > network" would guide the actual participants in > all aspects of their > > Internet activities thus helping with the > implementation in a long > > run. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Peter > > I feel less sure about the above principle. Lars brought up > the > requirement question. It seems to me the requirements > should guide our > discussion about the very highest level branch in the > decision tree. > > Lixia ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
