[e2e] a means to an end
craig at aland.bbn.com
Thu Nov 6 13:30:57 PST 2008
Interesting you invoked Van as it was a talk with Van last week that led to
my comment. I suspect this means you mean one thing by your comment and
I mean something else (i.e. we're in agreement but having a semantics
So let me try restating what I took from chatting with Van (with the
understanding that this is my take, not necessarily Van's).
* Information is place free.
* Actually accessing that information, in the worst case, requires
a rendezvous point (if it is popular data, it doesn't -- someone
near you will have a copy -- but information that is of only occasional
interest requires more effort).
* To get to the rendezvous point, you need some way to convert from the
name/label/ID of the information to a location of a rendezvous
point that knows where the information currently resides (or, better,
can get the information sent to you).
In message <49135FAA.6080603 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:
>Our dear friend, Van Jacobsen, has decided that layering "where" under
>"what" with regard to data is neither necessary, nor a good idea.
>I agree: confusing the container with the information it happens to hold
>is a layer violation. Information is not bound to place, nor is there a
>primary instance. Information is place-free, and perhaps the idea that
>there must be a "place" where it "is" is an idea whose time should pass,
>and the purveyors of that idea as a holy writ (the OSI layering) retired
>to play golf.
>Craig Partridge wrote:
>> In message <49134E2F.8010704 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:
>>> Why should "location" be relevant to networking? Must all wires be
>>> buried permanently in the ground? Does wireless and mobility not occur?
>> I think it is easier to see the merit of location when one thinks about
>> retrieving data. You need some clue as to where the data is.
More information about the end2end-interest