Hi all, since I found myself contributing to the draft, it should be obvious that I'm interested in continuing.
I think the proposed steps make a lot of sense. It should be fairly obvious that the distinction between identifiers and locators alone helps distinguish between what and how, but there is a large range of "whats" identified already in these drafts. >From my work at AnyWi with drones (which ties indirectly to the drip WG), it >is clear that the "what" most often should be the drone (i.e. a multi-homed >device), but it also should sometimes be the specific link - which is still >different from the locator of its current network attachment. DRIP WG is concerned with drone identification, and provides a host identifier via an ORCHID - but is not specifically solving the multi-homing problem that drones have, nor does it currently care about link specific identifiers. (Some of that is considered, but out of scope in RFC7401). The reason I raise DRIP and RFC7401 here is as an example of ongoing work that is already finding partial answers to these questions. In the interest of not ending up with too many and too different solutions, it would IMHO be beneficial to find a common reference framework. Hope that helps, Jens ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, September 30th, 2022 at 10:36, Luigi Iannone <g...@gigix.net> wrote: > Hi All, > During the last INTArea meeting the discussion on the two drafts related to > Internet addressing had three the clear outcomes: > 1. The issue seems to go beyond what the INTArea has been chartered for. > 2. The pain points (aka the problem) have to be scoped in a better way. > In the current form, the scope is so broad that we risk ending up trying to > boil the ocean without achieving any relevant result. > 3. Incremental deployability remains a MUST. No revolution. Evolution > is the only option. > > Concerning point 1. The documents have been taken out from INTArea (new > naming). We still continue the discussion on the INTArea mailing list, at > least temporarily with the option to have a dedicated mailing list in the > future. > > I would like to restart discuss on point 2: the scope. > > The considerations draft > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iannone-internet-addressing-considerations/) > highlighted three properties, namely: > Property 1: Fixed Address Length > Property 2: Ambiguous Address Semantic > Property 3: Limited Address Semantic Support > > But before going to the discussion of which property we should/want change > the first question the comes up is: what does an address identify exactly? > > A simple answer would be: an Interface. > > But we all know that reality is far more complex, as pointed out with the > many existing examples in the considerations draft. > What is even more complex is how to provide a wealth of answers to the above > question within a framework for evolved addressing that does not rely on the > continued point-wise approach we see in the Internet today. > > In order to start specifying what this evolved addressing framework could be, > the first steps are: > - paraphrasing Lixia Zhang’s question from the recent RTG WG interim > meeting as “What should we identify through an address?” > - scope the work around those answers we believe are most desirable > to avoid the boiling the ocean issue > > Do you believe this is a reasonable approach to move forward? > > Luigi
publickey - jens@interpeer.io - 0x5C345E9C.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
