RE: network controls are necessary

["J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>]

    > From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>

    > Rant: an old tenet of networking is that a name is not an address and
    > an address is not a route

This simplistic analysis (by Shoch) of the correct set of namespaces for a
network architecture was made obsolete by Saltzer about 20 years ago, and I
strongly suspect that Shoch would be the first to tell you so.

    > I don't see why we would need to invent new names and refer to names as
    > identifiers and addresses as locators.

"Name" properly is a meta-syntactic term for any kind of identifying string,
so in some sense every name in the IP architecture (IEEE addresses, IPvN
addresses, DNS names, etc) are *all* names.

The reason for inventing a new namespace and calling them "identifiers", and
referring to what we used to call "addresses" as "locators" is to make plain
that we have different namespaces to say i) *who* something is, and ii)
*where* it is - and "locators" *only* do the latter. This is unlike IPvN at
the moment, where effectively there is only one kind of name, which does both
- which has been shown to have significant disadvantages.

	Noel