There is outstanding discussion as to whether this identifier is, or must be, or may be, the network attachment point, the network stack, the transport stack, or the application. I tend to be in the family that wants to name the network/transport stack. I tend to treat the cases whee the network attachment point needs to be named (for example, for monitoring purposes) as a special case which can be treated as a stack associated with that entity.
But I will readily agree that this is not settled. Yours, Joel Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Dae Young KIM <dykim at cnu.kr> wrote:On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Lloyd Wood <L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk> wrote:On 18 Nov 2009, at 17:57, Dae Young KIM wrote:Actually, I'm new to this group, so don't have the collected knowledge of past conversations. My sincere apology.The mailing list archive's at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/maillist.html 2008 and before are at: http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/Thank you.L. DTN work: http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/saratoga/ <http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk>Yet, I think I can still defend my definition of the term.but redefining doesn't help the conversation that's been ongoing here for .... 3+ yrs. ID == host attachment point Locator == network (or loosely ASN in today's bgp4 routed world) -chris-- Regards, DY http://cnu.kr/~dykim_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg at irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.