[e2e] a means to an end

[Craig Partridge]

Hi Dave:

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
problem).

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).

Thanks!

Craig

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.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>