Re: [RRG] More discussion please: mapping churn

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

Hi Scott,

You wrote, quoting Tony Li:

>> There hasn't been much discussion on the mapping churn rate.  There have
>> been a few good questions, but not much back and forth.  Do folks have an
>> opinion or should I just propose some text?
> 
> I understand you're trying to nail down criteria, but I think it's
> premature to put numbers on this.  To start with, are you still using a
> general definition of "mapping", or is the question specific to
> intermediary-based map-n-encap?  Second, are you assuming a single
> database that needs to be updated, or allowing for multiple DBs or
> distributed DB?  Are you taking into account that in pull models
> "outdated" mapping entries might still be valid?

I agree with what I understand as your concern - that each practical
proposal has such a different structure that the "dynamics of the
mapping function" needs to be described in different terms for each
proposal.

I can't think of a single answer to Tony's question which covers the
problem in general, since each proposal has its own goals and ways
of coping with challenges.

More about this in:

  Concerns about the RRG process ... & how not to design an airliner
  2008-03-24 http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00971.html

Please also see the initial and final paragraphs in my message just
sent "new draft on ' A Taxonomy for ...".

I think the attempt to get a high-level theoretical perspective has
potential value, but if we spend hours trying to contort complex
reality into overly-remote theoretical perspectives, we are wasting
precious energy when we would be better off debating the merits of
each proposal, improving our proposals and improving the way they
are documented.

  - Robin


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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