Subject: RE: Minutes / Notes

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:13:14 -0700

> many p2p apps do their own routing because they are forced to do so,
> not because this is a desirable or acceptable burden to impose on
> applications.    also, what works acceptably well in a system to
> transfer widely-replicated files does not necessarily work well in a
> system where host identity is important.

There are pretty few systems were "host identity" is what really
matters; in most cases, you want something like domain or user identity.
For example, "www.google.com" is not exactly 1 single host. 

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:21:11 -0400

> matters; in most cases, you want something like domain or user
> identity. For example, "www.google.com" is not exactly 1 single host. 

I don't know any way to enumerate those systems, but there's an
important class of systems for which this does not apply - the systems
for which some amount of required data lives in the private memory of
some process which lives on a particular host (NOT in a domain).  This
applies to most of the distributed computing systems I know about.  And
as long as hosts don't make their memory directly accessible by outside
processes, such systems will quite reasonably exist.

Of course, as long if you keep using the web as an example of a typical
distributed app, you're going to miss those important counterexamples.

Keith

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:39:41 +0200

> processes, such systems will quite reasonably exist.

But increasingly, they are based on virtualized IP addresses and include
provision for application failover to another server when the original
server fails. So the semantics of identifiers are getting more subtle.

   Brian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NOTE: My email will soon change to [email-masked]
Try that if you get failure messages.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:52:28 -0700

> For example, "www.google.com" is not exactly 1 single host. 

Right.  See draft-irtf-nsrg-report-09.txt

Eliot

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:56:55 -0400

> Right.  See draft-irtf-nsrg-report-09.txt

no, wrong.  and there are lots of other things in that report that are
also bogus.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:45:27 -0700

Keith,

The example Christian sited is precisely what is addressed in that draft 
at one point.  Perhaps what is bogus is your view of the draft.

Eliot

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:10:26 -0400

> The example Christian sited is precisely what is addressed in that
> draft at one point.  Perhaps what is bogus is your view of the draft.

Perhaps what is bogus is the attempt to claim that that draft is
representative of NSRG.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:55:23 -0700

> Perhaps what is bogus is the attempt to claim that that draft is

There is no such claim.  Indeed just like this group there were 
different positions within the group that were not reconciled.  Yours 
was one of them.  Go back and read the draft.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:02:18 +0200

> was one of them.  Go back and read the draft.

Could we please keep this discussion to things relevant to multi6? 
Disagreements in other forums is out of scope.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:30:32 -0700

> Disagreements in other forums is out of scope.

The draft  (draft-irtf-nsrg-report-09.txt) is relevant to multi6 and the 
current discussion.

Eliot

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:02:21 +0200

> The draft  (draft-irtf-nsrg-report-09.txt) is relevant to multi6 and 
> the current discussion.

Yes. But not the discussion on what was or wasn't said in another 
group. Discussions on the content and applicability in multi6, fine.

- - kurtis -