[e2e] a means to an end

[David P. Reed]

Craig -

I did read your note - I was referring to more general wireless designs: 
I think you were focused on packet radios, e.g. systems that try to 
simulate wire-like behaviors (rather than, for example, systems that 
work by what some call "analog network coding", for example).

Happy to give others a rest.  I found the debate stimulating, and I've 
learned a lot, I think, about what you meant by "location".

Thanks.

Craig Partridge wrote:
> Hi Dave:
>
> Did you read my note?
>
> * Your point about wireless was made in my note.
>
> * Reliably translated didn't mean the address was right.  PUP works just
>   fine in my definition.  What I meant was that the translation function
>   was present and gave a useful result (rather than, say, "no address").  
>
> I have the sense we're talking past each other (and to give other email
> boxes a rest, I'll quit here).
>
> Craig
>
>
> In message <49342B8B.9000801 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:
>
>   
>> some points about the non-generality of your definition, which is tied 
>> to a very specific systems architecture.  The need for such a "tie" has 
>> always been my main point.
>>
>> I guess wireless communications systems are not part of your model.  
>> Many such systems don't have a "communications graph".  (if you stand on 
>> your head you can try to construct one if it is needed for some 
>> discussion that cannot take place without one in hand, but Maxwell's 
>> equations don't construct such a graph).
>>
>> I don't know what an object name is:  content addressable memories hold 
>> information, but don't necessarily have "object names", nor is an 
>> "object name" the primary retrieval means.
>>
>> Why "reliably translated"?   Xerox PUP used addresses that could be 
>> mistranslated (48 bit UIDs), but the PUP protocol system worked 
>> reliably, having been constructed in a manner that followed von 
>> Neumann's constructive proof that you could build reliable systems out 
>> of unreliable parts.
>>
>> Just as there is no need for "reliability" at the base of the network, 
>> there is no need for "location" at the base.
>>
>> Craig Partridge wrote:
>>     
>>> In message <49342367.7070503 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> So define "well defined place in the network" as YOU define it.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> A stable object name that can reliably be translated to an address in a
>>> communications graph.
>>>
>>> Explaining a bit (since we seem to have an impedance mismatch):
>>>
>>>     * stable object name -- it is a name that has longevity -- it isn't
>>>       a temporary name created for 5 minutes on-line.
>>>
>>>     * reliably translated to an address -- the address of the object
>>>       can change but the object always exists -- you can address it (I'm bei
>>>       
>  >ng
>   
>>>       careful here to permit intermittent connectivity ala DTN -- 
>>>       what I'm saying is you can address the object and send it a request,
>>>       that doesn't mean you can communicate with it in real-time).
>>>
>>>     * communications graph -- I'd like a better term (as graphs
>>>       model nodes and edges, which for wireless isn't the abstraction
>>>       I want) but the point is that the combination of RF/wires/fiber/nodes
>>>       that make up our communications networks are reasonably independent
>>>       of geography. (I can have a subnet spanning continents.)
>>>
>>> Note there's some clumsiness here -- I originally used "node" and then
>>> chose "object".  Neither word is quite right.  I hope the broad point is
>>> clear.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>
>