[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Terminology [Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals]

marcelo;

i guess there is nothing wrong with it, as long as we define it

precisely. 

Id oes appears in RFC1958, but i couldn't find any precise definition of
what an end-system is in there

It depends on how precisely you understand RFC1958.

It is a concise draft.

It is a word appears in RFC1958, editor of which is Brian.

Sorry but i couldn't find any definition of an end-system in Saltzer paper

As I wrotge, it's in the RFC.

However i couldn't find any precise definition about endpoint, so i reffer
to JNC's endpoint docuemnte where several really nice definition of endpoint
can be found.

The definition are (so you don't have to look for it)

"To recap, however, an "endpoint" is, in order of increasing
formality:

    - one participant of an end-end communication
    - the fundamental agent of end-end communication
    - the entity which is performing a reliable communication on an
      end-end basis

    - a fatesharing region
    - a boundary drawn around a set of state and/or computations such
      that it lives or dies as a unit"

So, so far i like using endpoint because we have a definition for it and
IMHO it suit our needs.


That is fine, as long as end system in RFC 1958 is no differnt from
end point in Saltzer's paper.

Can we reach the consensus?

Forget NSRG.


Why?

Because it is a new terminology useful for no new goals.

stack is also well defined in the nsrg report as: ".  A stack is defined as
one participant or the process on one side of an end-to-end communication.
"


People who engaged in NSRG activity has demonstrated that it is no
well defined.

However, if they repent that "stack" is identical to "end system"
of RFC1958 and Saltzer's "end point", I'm fine, though we still
have no reason to introduce terminlogy of "stack".

I haven't been able to find a definition for end-system,

See RFC1958, especially, its reference.

Masataka Ohta