The note i was responding to stated that the ID named the NAP.
If it had said that the locator named the NAP, then the only quibble would have been that some folks argue that the locator only needs to name the subnet / link on which the NAP is located.
Yours,
Joel
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com>_______________________________________________
> 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 ... as a
> special case which can be treated as a stack associated with that
> entity.
??? I would have thought that the locator named the NAP?
I mean, going by the usual way of analyzing the problem (i.e. considering what
classes of objects needs names, and what the syntax and semantics of those
names ought to be), it would seem to me most economical to name one class of
thing (network/transport stack) with a location-independent name, and the
other (NAP) with a location-dependent name... That way, both (important)
classes of things have names... and in each case, a name with the semantics
most suited to the uses were are likely to put it to.
Noel
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.