[e2e] a means to an end

[Craig Partridge]

In message <49136623.5000106 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:

>I'm bloody serious.  The idea that one must access information by 
>*first* deciding *where* to look and then asking a container is JUST 
>WRONG.  Or to be more polite, it is a design choice that we made 
>arbitrarily in the Internet.  But it is not unambiguously "right".

Hi Dave:

We're clearly not communicating.  I carefully did not say *first* -- I
sought to make clear it was the thing you did if alternatives failed.

Craig

>
>Craig Partridge wrote:
>> 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 occasiona
 >l
>>       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
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>
>>