RE: [RRG] RE: Is the flat identifier acceptable

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

|As I remembered, in the earlier thread about what we have 
|reached consensus
|on, most people believe that the identifier should be 
|aggregatable. Is my
|memory correct?


Ummm.... No.  I don't believe that we did a consensus check on that.  There
were some opinions, but I don't believe it was a represenative sample.


|I think the passport ID in real life is a good example for the host
|identifier, since the passport ID has a hierarchy, it's easy to enforce
|organization-level allocation, management and security control. 


Dunno about your passport, but mine doesn't say anything except something
about the issuing post office.


|Yes, shim6 alike proposals do not need a resolution 
|infrastructure. However,
|those proposals alone can not support mobility since there is no such
|id-locator indirection infrastructure. 


?  Such an infrastructure is not a requirement, and we derated the mobility
requirement some time ago.


|Some other proposal 
|does not need an
|id-locator mapping infrastructure. However, it requires every 
|host to have a
|FQDN name. In nature, the FQDN name plays the role of the 
|identifier in the
|resolution infrastructure, on behave of the IDENTIFIER of the 
|session. This
|way, two name entities together play the role of the 
|identifier, with each
|one of them suitable for different context.


And since the FQDN does aggregate nicely, there's no problem.

Tony


--
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