Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals

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

    > From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com> 

    >>> An interface ID makes no sense to me.

    >> Perhaps because you, in contrast, are thinking of "ID" as "name with
    >> no properties"? I think you will agree that interfaces do need names
    >> of some sort - our familiar "locators" (i.e. an address which *only*
    >> names an interface, and its location).

    > Actually I was thinking more of "makes no sense"= isn't useful in the
    > context of id/loc split.

Actually, now that I think about it some more, perhaps you had a completely
different meaning in mind here.

Did you in fact mean to say that "I don't see any need to provide any kind of
name for interfaces, either one with topological significance, or any other
kind"?

(The "name with topological significance for an interface" is what I've been
calling a "locator".)


In other words, when you talk about "id/loc split", are you thinking that
we'll have two different kinds of names for endpoints/stacks - "ids" which
are not related to any particular locations, and some sort of "location" name
which is?

	Noel