Subject: Re: [lisp] architecturally separate name-spaces - but assumption about a single value means same thing if in both?

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:11:15 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>

    > the question is whether the same bitpattern must belong to the same
    > site and end-host.

I would tend to say 'yes' - but I'm sure some bright spark will find a use
for having that not be true!

    > I'm not happy about separate namespaces not being separate (e.g.
    > independently allocatable) without that being clearly written down.
    > What is written down is that they are separate name-spaces.

I think that's more of a goal, or perhaps more accurately a gross
simplification made for the sake of a clear, simple explanation, than a
strict statement of fact. (If nothing else, they aren't independently
allocated.)

So maybe the wording could use some clarification - as long as we don't
make it harder to understand for the average network engineer out there
(especially bearing in mind what Bob Dobbs said about average people...)

	Noel

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:25:00 -0400

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> wrote:
>    > From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
>
>    > the question is whether the same bitpattern must belong to the same
>    > site and end-host.
>

Useful or not - that is not possible with what is currently specified.

>    > I'm not happy about separate namespaces not being separate (e.g.
>    > independently allocatable) without that being clearly written down.
>    > What is written down is that they are separate name-spaces.
>

I strongly think it needs clarification; Joel's text is a good start.
Certainly, starting from the natural
assumption about two namespaces being completely independent, it was "clear"
that there were problems as specified.

Alia