Re: [lisp] Intro doc - to split, or not to split

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 16 October 2013 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2462C11E81DC for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 rq9LzJJQ60Oj for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF5611E81D1 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 05:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id CB92F18C145; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:59:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20131016125902.CB92F18C145@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:59:02 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [lisp] Intro doc - to split, or not to split
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:59:21 -0000

    > From: Fabio Maino <fmaino@cisco.com>

    > The way I read the charter, we're asked to provide an intro to LISP
    > that would guide the reader through the various docs of the LISP
    > specification. I believe the doc, up to section 7, does a pretty good
    > job in addressing that requirement.

Mmm. Perhaps; I'd have to go re-read it. It was certainly not written with
that goal in mind, and I can think of at least one document (multicast) which
is not coverered there.

    > Did you consider including part II in the perspective document? It
    > seems that the more details provided there may fit the interest of a
    > reader willing to know more about LISP.

I had never considered it; and I don't think it would be a very good fit. The
reason is that the two documents are of a _very_ different character: the
first mostly talks about 'what LISP looks like', and the second is mostly all
about 'why LISP looks the way it does'. I think I'd rather have three
documents, than put that detailed (sic) description of LISP operations in
with the perspective content.

    > One possible way to do the integration would be to reuse most of
    > section 7 from the current doc. You could use that as a preamble, where
    > you describe a packet's processing, while you refer to the introduction
    > for a more formal introduction of terms and definitions.

If we did decide to split the intro document, that's certainly perhaps the
best idea I've seen so far as to how to create a reasonable lead-in to that
material, in a stand-alone document.

	Noel