On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:33 , Robin Whittle wrote: > Hi Luigi, > > As I wrote in a recent message: > > Misnamed WGs, e.g. LISP != Loc/ID Split > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70176.html > > HIP, which is a Locator-Identifier Separation protocol, dates from > 2003, 8 years ago. However, HIP goes back to draft-moskowitz-hip-00 of > May 2009. I should have mentioned GSE, which is also a Loc-ID > Separation protocol. GSE goes back at least to March 1997: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-00 > > Four months later - 14 years ago - the next version had the title: > > Separating Identifiers and Locators in Addresses: > An Analysis of the GSE Proposal for IPv6 > > GSE and HIP are both Locator-Identifier Separation protocols. LISP is > not, since it operates on totally different principles. > > In referring to LISP as "the loc/ID separation protocol", as you did: > >> Like Jari and others I do not see the name as disrespectful and it is >> unrealistic to believe that the loc/ID separation protocol can be >> renamed. It has been around for more than 5 years it is just too late. > > it seems that you are both asserting and assuming that LISP is not only > a Loc/ID Separation protocol, but "*the* Loc/ID Separation protocol". > Robin, this is your personal interpretation not what I said. Luigi > It was mistake to think of LISP as a Loc/ID Separation protocol. > Asserting that it is - or behaving as if it is - does not alter the fact > that it is not. > > I can't imagine why "LISP" as the name for an Internet protocol should > be regarded as homage to the programming language. Is there any > evidence that this was the intention in late 2006 or early 2007? > > - Robin > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf