Acronyms for Locator/ID Separation Protocol

There is actually an black art (i.e. it takes practice) in technical 
writing to develop abbreviations. Lets see

             Locator/ID Separation Protocol

Generally it good to make it pronounceable, easy to remember:

   LISP ... "hmmm, I heard that one before, no good."
   LIDS
   LIDSEP
   LOSEP
   LOSP
   LOISP
   LOIDS  <--- I like this one!!

You could also always twist the title:

      Protocol to Separate Location IDs

And now you have a new range of potentials easy to pronounce names.

<g>

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".
> 
> 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@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 