Misnamed WGs, e.g. LISP != Loc/ID Split

[Robin Whittle <[e-mail]>]

>From the "Re: The death John McCarthy" thread, John Klensin and Bob
Hinden raised concerns about the LISP (scalable routing) WG using the
same name as John McCarthy's LISP programming language.

I agree with their concerns.  It should be obvious to everyone that new
projects should find new names, or at least names which are distinctive
within the fields in which the project exists.  This is in part out of
respect for previous projects and also to save people time and
frustration when they are trying to find references to the new project
via search engines.  The latter can only be achieved with a unique name.

John Klensin added:

> Not a generational issue but a deliberate effort to be cute.
> The problem was pointed out to them when the WG was first
> proposed.  They were aware of the programming language and just
> very impressed with themselves for coming up with the acronym.

Choosing a brief name which is already in wide use for some other
purpose is a really bad idea.  It doesn't just muck up the ability to
find documents regarding the new project, it mucks up the ability to
find documents for the old one.  (Pity anyone trying to research Apache
- the Native American tribe - with all the references to helicopter
gunships and web-servers.)  Better to have a distinctive name, even if
it is longer and less cute.*

I don't recall any mention of the Cisco/IRTF/IETF LISP project being
named in homage to LISP the programming language.


I entirely support what Brian Carpenter added:

> 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...

Noel Chiappa replied, without any arguments:

> You really don't want to go there. Really.

The "Locator - Identifier Separation" concept pre-dates LISP.  This 2004
document concerns HIP, citing some 2003 documents.  HIP is a true
Locator Identifier Separation architecture.

  http://koti.welho.com/pnikande/publications/saint2004.pdf

    The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) separates the endpoint
    identifier and locator roles of IP addresses by introducing
    a new name-space and a new layer to the TCP/IP stack.

The LISP project began in late 2006 the the first ID
draft-farinacci-lisp-00 is from January 2007.  Despite claims to the
contrary, LISP does not introduce a new namespace, while HIP certainly does.

    http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/namespace/

Up to 2008, and perhaps later I mistakenly referred to Ivip as a Locator
Identifier Separation architecture.  I pointed out that the LISP's
representation of "Locator Identifier Separation" was a misnomer in
early 2010.  Other people mentioned this as well, I think before what I
wrote:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05864.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg06190.html

In early 2010, a dichotomy for scalable routing architectures was developed:

  Core-Edge Separation (CES):  LISP, Ivip and I think IRON.

  Core-Edge Elimination (CEE): HIP and ILNP - both of which are
                               Locator Identifier Separation
                               architectures.

More on this dichotomy at:
  	
  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/loc-id-sep-vs-ces/
  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/

The CEE and CES dichotomy has its roots in a 2008 paper:

  http://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2008/papers/18.pdf

as mentioned in my attempt to describe taxonomies for scalable routing:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07307.html


* However, I chose "Devil Fish" as the name of my musical instrument
  modification in 1993 and for a while it outranked the fishes and
  nuclear submarines on Google.

  - Robin