[lisp] LISP architecture document(s)
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 18 July 2012 15:12 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 7CB1C21F8692 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.334, 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 ZPeBwZtXRp7a for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68EA21F86FA for <lisp@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 13D5218C0F0; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:13:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20120718151339.13D5218C0F0@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:13:39 -0400
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: [lisp] LISP architecture document(s)
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, 18 Jul 2012 15:12:52 -0000
Hi, all: As part of the work on LISP, we needed an architecture document, and I volunteered to write it. I have a couple of ID's available now (more about why it's "a couple" below). Of course, the WG will have to look at these and see if they're happy with the direction I'm taking, etc, before deciding whether to take these up as official WG work items, etc. There will be a presentation at the next IETF (Vince will be handling that, I can't be there, apologies) to describe it a bit, but in addition the documents themselves are available for anyone who wants to take a look. They are at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chiappa-lisp-introduction-01.txt http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chiappa-lisp-architecture-01.txt A few words on why there are two: I'm not sure there's a uniform sense of what an 'architecture document' might be, but to me it's something that has several main goals: - Gives the reader a clear, high-level view of the entire system - starting with a good picture of how the thing operates (including how it's divided up into pieces, and how the pieces interact), what its goals are, what capabilities it has, what one can do with it, etc, etc. - Given that good high-level picture, it then does some analysis of the system, again at a high level - talking about its scaling properties, security, etc, etc. - It might also give some insight into the potential/likely future evolution of the system, including things that need to be improved, etc, etc. Others may differ as to this view of what an architecture document should do (which is fine, we can discuss it), but that's basically what I've been trying to produce for our tasked architecture document. So why two documents? Simple: length. By the time I'd said what I felt needed to be said, to give a really good understanding of the whole system, it was a pretty long document. So, it's been split into two. There was a very natural fault line anyway, between the 'this is a high-level picture of how LISP works' material, which someone who knows little/nothing about LISP and wanted to learn about it would be interested in, and 'this is some architectural analysis of LISP', which fewer people would likely be interested in. Hence the division into an 'Introduction to LISP' document and a 'LISP architecture' document. The first one (introduction) is in _relatively_ complete form - a few small sections remain to be written, but it's mostly complete. It's also been worked over a fair amount, in terms of getting things in what I felt to be the right order of presentation, having the right level of detail/content, etc. So I don't expect _major_ changes (unless, of course, the WG feels such are in order). I am, however, still fiddling with it, so we're not (yet) at the 'detailed editorial comments' stage - although if anyone reads it, and has high-level comments (e.g. 'you ought to talk about topic X', or 'it would be better if you talked about P before you get to Q'), I would be most grateful for, and interested in, hearing things like that. The second document (architecture) is, alas, not quite as complete - although large chunks of it are done to a reasonable level. (My apologies for not having it more complete... sigh. So much to say, so little time/energy...) It's in pretty much final form for over half its likely final length, until one gets to the 'Security' section, which is still rather rough. Again, still a ways from editorial comments on this one too (even more so, obviously), but if anyone has comments about e.g. things it should and/or should not cover, etc, I would be most interested in hearing them. Noel
- [lisp] LISP architecture document(s) Noel Chiappa