IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The death John McCarthy

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 27 October 2011 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2CE1F0C44; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kqkHLb4sDyDU; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1ACF1F0C3D; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:17:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qadc10 with SMTP id c10so3874958qad.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Xwat5NGDMrEi80eN4PzRe9bG9PSSAk1+5vObT0YP6m0=; b=FHPilATZm2dCmHscktrrOVAjrFUdYIldlJawaMXGlOu1CfRdK1YCVrPCJfOrvMeZ31 /gPAru2ZTW2xo4BjTyQkdml3kXVa9hrluXXeyK6hHv9CgtlDdYg0HUgUahuur63cBcrb INLpkTFVYt4NjBwwtH5mevPJxOfFlGlGL4rqs=
Received: by 10.229.220.20 with SMTP id hw20mr2744105qcb.296.1319753845277; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hn10sm10613911qab.20.2011.10.27.15.17.22 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4EA9D870.5010403@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:17:20 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: The death John McCarthy
References: <552F103D-2C46-44E6-8CE4-6793DC326E87@gmail.com> <A9F8C7F0EDBCA36AA609D415@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <A9F8C7F0EDBCA36AA609D415@PST.JCK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:17:27 -0000

On 2011-10-28 11:04, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:08 -0700 Bob Hinden
> <bob.hinden@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 <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
To: ram@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>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email