Re: "so-called" keyword and layer 3

[James Seng/Personal <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Ko,

I believe the norm of the IETF has not take existing business
requirements into consideration. Their technical input, however, would
be appreciated.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "YangWoo Ko" <newcat@peacenet.or.kr>
To: <ietf-irnss@lists.elistx.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:46 PM
Subject: "so-called" keyword and layer 3


> Dear John Klensin and others,
>
> Whether I like it or not, I can not but admit that one of largest
> driving forces on naming service (or business) area is keyword
service.
> John Klensin suggested that "adapting keyword systems to operate
> locally and as part of the third sublayer model proposed here would
> appear to be the best way forward for such systems." This makes sense
> only when the strength of keyword service is localization. But,
> all folks from keyword service busness, eg. realname, netpia, think
> that "direct navigation" - which, in turn, requires lookup or
uniqueness
> of name within given context -  is also a crucial point.
>
> Is there any way to harmonize these two requirements - localization
> and direct navigation - in third sublayer ?
>
> My best regards
>
> --
> /*------------------------------------------------
> YangWoo Ko : newcat@peacenet.or.kr
> PeaceNet / Director
> ------------------------------------------------*/