At 7:06 -0500 12/1/99, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>At 22:52 30.11.99 -0500, John Day wrote:
>>At 18:12 -0500 11/30/99, Mark Atwood wrote:
>> >John Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> Correct. Lets get an application name space so we don't need to worry
>> >> about it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Please gods below, not more ASN.1
>>
>>What a strange reaction!? What does an arcane syntax notation have to do
>>with Shoch's observation that there are 3 kinds of addresses:
>>applications, hosts, and routes? What have you been smoking?
>
>For those who missed the previous round.....
>at the time ASN.1, X.400 and X.500 were defined, ISO/ITU (mostly ISO) also
>defined the concept of an "application" to be (......) (that's about the
>right level of precision) that you could address by using an "application
>entity title" or similar entity.
Interesting. So someone else picked up on early ARPANet/Ethernet ideas and
tried to use them.
>
>Somehow this idea never turned into anything that real products use for
>real operations, but you sometimes stumble across the relics of the idea
>here and there.
>
Does this mean that if someone else tries to use an idea in their
environment from our environment that then makes it a bad idea for us to
use?
I still don't understand why you even brought up this line of discussion.
I don't see its relevance at all. Shoch's paper laid down some basic
concepts in naming and addressing and he did it very early on. I don't see
that they have been contradicted by anything that has transpired in the
meantime. So what is your problem with Shoch's paper?
>Naming applications something different from host:port would be nice. But
>we haven't managed to do it yet.
>
Maybe we should. It might make a number of things easier.
Take care,
John
