[e2e] architecturally speaking

[Kevin Fall]

> plutarch is not about naming and addressing much - if you want a good
> solutuon to that problem i would refer you to paul francis work
> (either his thesis or more recent work or both) - it is more about
> what it says so please read it:-)

>From what I can tell the case being made is that the current Internet architecture
has problems when faced with 'radical' heterogeneity, and so you group homogeneous
portions into contexts and you use some form of functions
(IFs) [mappings in the case of naming/addressing,
possibly maintained by soft-state and registrations, etc] to provide the
bridge between contexts.  Section 4 (the section titled 'Architecture')
discusses naming, addresses, and contexts.  So if this architecture isn't about
naming and addressing much, could you please elaborate?

> ...
> the DTNRG stuff , which we read is about disconnection.

Well, while somewhat true, a bunch of time has been put into thinking about
'radical' heterogeneity (I do like this term, btw), and we would hope
that things work reasonably well over not-so-disconnected and not-so-very-high delay
environments.

> ...
> overlays are very f ine - overlays for disconnection have to do state
> (context) management very well - we skate aroud that coz we only need
> to do it "on the order" of as well as the internet or so...

So, if you are 'on the order of the internet or so', perhaps it isn't
so radically heterogeneous ;-)

Anyway, the reasons for the dtn overlay are two-fold:  one for heterogeneous
operation over very different kinds of networks and two for dealing
with disconnections and interruptions.

> 
> 
> good luck - your parsec-age may vary...
> 
> btwe,m i really like the DTNRG stuff , but it is orthogonal

thanks, but I believe many of the issues are essentially the same, so I don't see
them as particularly orthogonal.

cheers,
- K