On 2011-10-28 11:04, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:08 -0700 Bob Hinden > <bob.hin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ... >> I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group >> rename what it currently calls "LISP" to something else. To >> put it politely, the IETF should be standing on the shoulders >> of the giants who have laid the groundwork of the Internet, >> not stepping on their toes. > > I strongly support this. > > More generally, I wish we would just stop using names for WGs > that are widely understood to mean something else in computer > science, software engineering, or networking. Despite good > intentions, it cannot be a mark of respect or homage when the WG > name overlays a term the refers to a particular invention or > development. At least IMO, the cuteness wears off very quickly > and only confusion or disrespect are left.
Especially since the IETF "LISP" is a misnomer; it is not a locator/identifier split. It's a global locator to site locator mapping. This was pointed out some time ago... Brian -------- Original Message -------- Subject: draft-farinacci-lisp-00 Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:32:16 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter <b...@zurich.ibm.com> Organization: IBM To: r...@iab.org Hi Dino, Vince and Dave O, First, don't take this the wrong way, but I think your terminology is broken. To see what I mean, try the following substitutions: EID -> SLOC (site locator) RLOC -> GLOC (global locator) Why? Because in fact, as you describe things, the SLOC (EID) is a valid locator in the infrastructure of the end site, which might by the way be an international corporate network. The GLOC (RLOC) is a valid locator in the global Internet. I can take this a little further. We could also imagine a VLOC (VPN locator) which would apply on a VPN infrastructure, but would logically be at the same level as a GLOC. If you follow this logic and your mention of recursion, I think you end up with xLOC where x stands for the routing context in which the xLOC is used. You could certainly have a recursively encapsulated packet GLOC.VLOC.SLOC.payload, for example. Or alternatively you could say that in the case of a GLOC.SLOC.payload packet, the Internet is the default VPN. Apart from breaking your cute acronym, I don't think this changes anything in your proposal. But I'm a bit leery of using "ID/loc split" to describe what is actually a multi-level locator scheme. (Which BTW I think is a very good approach, and I've thought so since 1994.) <snip> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf