Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!LLL-TIS.ARPA!bae
From: bae@LLL-TIS.ARPA (Hwa Jin Bae)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Fw: request for peer review
Message-ID: <8710141958.AA22960@lll-tis.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 14-Oct-87 15:58:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-tis.8710141958.AA22960
Posted: Wed Oct 14 15:58:42 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Oct-87 05:44:27 EDT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 13

It sounds like a neat idea (Ollie ?).  I especially like the idea of dynamic 
node address resolution.  The BIND is just too primitive not to mention the 
cryptic implementation.  I wonder how your Landmark Routing will turn out
in junction with some of the latest high level name binding techniques used
in RPC based systems (most recent one I know of being the NCS from apollo).
The NCS Location Broker may be able to do a better job if you finish the
implementation of your stuff, I think....

May I have to honor of reading one of the chapters of your article?
I am very interested.
Best wishes.

Hwajin