On 10/31/2011 10:10, Dave Cridland wrote:
On a final note - from me at least - if people genuinely do take offence ...
Let's drop the "offense" part of the issue altogether, and look at the
other bits then.
1. The LISP protocol seems not to genuinely be _a_ locator/Id split
protocol, and it certainly seems not to be _the_ locator/Id split
protocol. (I say "seems" since I don't know, and am happy to leave it up
to the experts to determine; but some pretty smart people have put the
premise forward so I'm willing to give a listen.)
2. (and more importantly) It's silly to have an IETF working
group/protocol for a network thing that shares the same name as a well
known programming language.
The importance of point 2 cannot be overestimated. I remember the first
time I saw "LISP" on an agenda thinking "Why the heck does the IETF have
a working group for a programming language?" All such conversations
along the lines of the one that straightened me out about what LISP is
for both raise the barrier to entry for new participants and make us
look foolish, ignorant, or both.
An ideal outcome of this conversation would be that the LISP working
group recognize that however clever they may feel the name to be, time
has shown that it's causing more harm than good and that it's time to
pick a new one.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf