Subject: The death John McCarthy

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:08:11 -0700

John McCarthy died a few days ago.  I won't try to summarize his accomplishments myself but thought that the obituary in the NY Times was very good:

  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/science/26mccarthy.html

"John McCarthy, a computer scientist who helped design the foundation of today’s Internet-based computing and who is widely credited with coining the term for a frontier of research he helped pioneer, Artificial Intelligence, or A.I., died on Monday at his home in Stanford, Calif. He was 84.
....
In 1958, Dr. McCarthy moved to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where, with Marvin Minsky, he founded the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.  It was at M.I.T. that he began working on what he called List Processing Language, or Lisp, a computer language that became the standard tool for artificial intelligence research and design."

With his death, I have a request.

I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group rename what it currently calls "LISP" to something else.  To put it politely, the IETF should be standing on the shoulders of the giants who have laid the groundwork of the Internet, not stepping on their toes. 

Bob

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:15:38 +0200

Bob,

First, I share your admiration for John McCarthy (after all, who does
not?).  In that spirit, my understanding was that LISP was an homage,
and as such should not be viewed in a negative light.  You're of course
right that we do stand on shoulders– many.

Eliot

On 10/27/11 11:08 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:04:20 -0400

--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:08 -0700 Bob Hinden
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group
> rename what it currently calls "LISP" to something else.  To
> put it politely, the IETF should be standing on the shoulders
> of the giants who have laid the groundwork of the Internet,
> not stepping on their toes. 

I strongly support this. 

More generally, I wish we would just stop using names for WGs
that are widely understood to mean something else in computer
science, software engineering, or networking.  Despite good
intentions, it cannot be a mark of respect or homage when the WG
name overlays a term the refers to a particular invention or
development.  At least IMO, the cuteness wears off very quickly
and only confusion or disrespect are left.

    john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:17:20 +1300

> and only confusion or disrespect are left.

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...

   Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: draft-farinacci-lisp-00
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:32:16 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Organization: IBM
To: [email-masked]

Hi Dino, Vince and Dave O,

First, don't take this the wrong way, but I think your terminology is
broken.

To see what I mean, try the following substitutions:

EID -> SLOC (site locator)
RLOC -> GLOC (global locator)

Why? Because in fact, as you describe things, the SLOC (EID) is
a valid locator in the infrastructure of the end site, which might
by the way be an international corporate network. The GLOC (RLOC)
is a valid locator in the global Internet.

I can take this a little further. We could also imagine a
VLOC (VPN locator) which would apply on a VPN infrastructure,
but would logically be at the same level as a GLOC.

If you follow this logic and your mention of recursion, I think
you end up with xLOC where x stands for the routing context in
which the xLOC is used. You could certainly have a recursively
encapsulated packet GLOC.VLOC.SLOC.payload, for example.
Or alternatively you could say that in the case of a GLOC.SLOC.payload
packet, the Internet is the default VPN.

Apart from breaking your cute acronym, I don't think this
changes anything in your proposal. But I'm a bit leery of using
"ID/loc split" to describe what is actually a multi-level locator
scheme. (Which BTW I think is a very good approach, and I've thought
so since 1994.)

<snip>

---

From: Hector <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:56:12 -0400

Bob Hinden wrote:

> I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group rename what 
> it currently calls "LISP" to something else.  

I notice that myself.  +1.

People should be aware of the such obvious conflict in acronyms, at 
least do a quick research for existence names. I guess its a "younger" 
generation issue.

Maybe it was the LISP one, but I think I noticed another conflict in 
recent I-D draft submissions. Don't recall what it was.

--
HLS

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:10:58 -0400

+1

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:15:55 -0700

Hi Bob,

> 
> I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group rename what it
> currently calls "LISP" to something else.  To put it politely, the IETF should
> be standing on the shoulders of the giants who have laid the groundwork of the
> Internet, not stepping on their toes.
> 

I commend your sincerity and your admiration for Dr McCarthy. It's a sad
event for the A.I world.

While the name of the IETF Work and the Language is identical I actually
don't see that as a problem, nor do I think it crushes anyone's toes - or at
least no one has suggested it to me. The people who know the foundations for
LISt Processing (LISP) will quickly assess the IETF Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) as completely different contexts.

For the beige bodies in between, does it matter that there is a small
confusion that requires 10 seconds of google-fu?

That stated, I'm quite happy to see the use of the LISP acronym used as a
homage to Dr McCarthy, and since LISP (the WG) is in a re-charter phase I'm
happy (with LISP WG co-chair hat off) to suggest a small paragraph at the
start of the draft charter which highlights the difference and pays respect
to Dr McCarthy.

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:20:26 -0800

On 10/27/2011 02:04 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> science, software engineering, or networking.

Yes, and the car/cdr jokes were funny once-each.  That
said, at this point the LISP protocol stuff has been around
a bunch of years and changing its name would probably be
more confusing than not changing its name.  I'm not sure
it's a good idea to change this one but I think it's an
excellent idea to be more mindful in the future.

[not buying the "'LISP' as homage" stuff.  Someone thought it was
funny.  I can think of exactly one protocol that, for example,
uses S-expressions, the sort of thing which would seem to show some
actual regard for the work]

Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:15:03 -0400

--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 19:56 -0400 Hector
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> People should be aware of the such obvious conflict in
> acronyms, at least do a quick research for existence names. I
> guess its a "younger" generation issue.

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.

Some day, the IETF will grow up.  But I'm not holding my breath
:-(

   john

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:07:42 +0200

On 10/27/2011 11:15 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>In that spirit, my understanding was that LISP was an homage,
> and as such should not be viewed in a negative light.

Unfortunately, what matters is the risk of the name's use being taken as 
disrespectful, no matter what was intended.  Sensitivities like this are not 
nuanced and do not ask questions.

Last year, it didn't matter.  Five years from now it won't matter.  Today it 
does and possibly should.

Today, the homage is to take a small action, to avoid possible sensitivities.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Benson Schliesser <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:31:24 -0700

On Oct 27, 2011, at 7:07 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Unfortunately, what matters is the risk of the name's use being taken as disrespectful, no matter what was intended.  Sensitivities like this are not nuanced and do not ask questions.
> 
> Last year, it didn't matter.  Five years from now it won't matter.  Today it does and possibly should.
> 

I think you mean "oversensitivity".

(By the way, http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+lisp says lisp is "Noun: A speech defect in which s is pronounced like th in thick and z is pronounced like th in this.")

Dr. McCarthy's legacy speaks for itself, and will be respected regardless of what names we use here - it can't be diminished so easily.

-Benson

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:21:52 -0700

>> guess its a "younger" generation issue.

If by younger generation you mean people in their early to mid 50s
who've been in this space for 30 years, then sure.

> proposed.

The problem with LISP has never been what it was called.

>  They were aware of the programming language and just
>r

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:47:46 +1100

>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.

> 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.

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

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:30:48 +0300

First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented Lisp (the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr. McCarthy as a hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful. And I almost take offense in the claim that this is a generational thing.

Frankly, I agree with Joel, Terry and others. There are plenty of name collisions, LISP is not the first or the last one, and in general, people learn to deal with them. More importantly, changing the name now would be even more confusing, and unfair to the folks who have been working on this. Half of IETF working group names are cute (and the other half I probably haven't figured out yet...)

And don't get me wrong. I don't like the name too much, and would have preferred another one. And I can't claim there will be no mistakes. At the time that we created the working group, one of the IESG members mentioned the work to her knitting group and they asked why the IETF works on the programming language. That is how widely know the programming language term is. But already at that time the effort had been around for several years and was widely known with its name. I considered it already too late back then to change the name.

Let me propose two concrete actions, however. First, the plenary is coming up. We should spend a silent moment to pay respect to the recently fallen heroes of computer science.

Secondly, the LISP base specification is coming up for IETF last call as soon as we agree on fixes per my AD review. Please review it and make your comments on the content -- it is important that we get it right, including accurately describing its benefits and limitations.

Jari

---

From: Hector <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 03:07:50 -0400

Jari Arkko wrote:
> First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented 
> Lisp (the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr. 
> McCarthy as a hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful. 
> And I almost take offense in the claim that this is a generational thing.

Well you shouldn't and my apology for stated that. I was informed off 
list it was an intentional tribute to the language.  It was just one 
of those things where you saw something that caught your eye and only 
as a passing thought, "don't these people know its a well known 
acronym?"  I think I saw there was some relationship, but thought 
about the long run usage of "LISP" in reference to this work might be 
confusing.  In other words, should people refer to this work as LISP? 
  Its rhetorical.

I'm out.

--
HLS

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:23:15 +0200

Hi,

Like Jari and others I do not see the name as disrespectful and it is unrealistic to believe that the loc/ID speration protocol can be renamed. It has been around for more than 5 years it is just too late.

On the other hand, the name  can be considered an homage by itself.

Luigi Iannone

On Oct 28, 2011, at 09:07 , Hector wrote:

> Well you shouldn't and my apology for stated that. I was informed off list it was an intentional tribute to the language.  It was just one of those things where you saw something that caught your eye and only as a passing thought, "don't these people know its a well known acronym?"  I think I saw there was some relationship, but thought about the long run usage of "LISP" in reference to this work might be confusing.  In other words, should people refer to this work as LISP?  Its rhetorical.
> 
> I'm out.
> 
> --
> HLS

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:33:30 +1100

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

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:24:49 +0200

> a Loc/ID Separation protocol, but "*the* Loc/ID Separation protocol".

Robin,

this is your personal interpretation not what I said.

Luigi

---

From: Hector <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 07:38:15 -0400

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>

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:52:36 +1100

Hi Luigi,

> this is your personal interpretation not what I said.

Sure - can you provide a more accurate interpretation?

  - Robin

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:41:22 +0200

Hi Robin,

Thanks, but no thanks. I do not want to be  dragged in such kind of discussion.

I expressed my opinion, please do not  attribute to me things that I did not say or meant to say.

Thanks

ciao

Luigi

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:17:15 -0700 (PDT)

> First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented Lisp
> (the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr. McCarthy as a
> hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful. And I almost take
> offense in the claim that this is a generational thing.

I didn't charter the group and I've only done two Lisp implementations, but
aside from that, +1. (Or should I say "t" instead?)

And frankly, if there's disrespect to be found here, IMO it lies in using this
sad event as a proxy to criticize some IETF work some people apparently don't
like.

				Ned

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:41:29 -0700

> sad event as a proxy to criticize some IETF work some people apparently don't

(t)

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:28:43 -0700

Ned,

> sad event as a proxy to criticize some IETF work some people apparently don't

Just to be clear, my request was limited to the name.  I said nothing about the work itself.

Bob

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:47:32 -0700

Eliot,

> right that we do stand on shoulders– many.

I reviewed some of the early drafts and the closest thing I could find to an acknowledgment related to the chosen name was in <draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt>:

   In particular, we would like to thank Dave Meyer for his clever
   suggestion for the name "LISP". ;-)

Bob

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:50:50 -0400

--On Friday, October 28, 2011 08:17 -0700
[email-masked] wrote:

> sad event as a proxy to criticize some IETF work some people
> apparently don't like.

Sorry, Ned.  I can't speak for others, but no proxies here.  

I don't like the name and I have never liked the name.  I did
take exception to it (the name, not the WG) when the WG was
first propose and got nowhere. I have noticed the use of
LISP-the-programming-language terminology for protocol
characteristics.  In conjunction with the name, that use of that
additional terminology completely contradicts the argument that
these are separate domains of application and no confusion is
intended or likely.  What both demonstrate to me is that the
people responsible for the name were being much more clever than
professional.  Of course, it may also demonstrate that I have
little or no sense of humor :-(.

As far as the protocol (or related "IETF work") is concerned, I
haven't paid enough attention to it to have a competent opinion
and I am quite agnostic about the work.

It is, for me, all about the name.  Even then, I'm less
concerned about issues of disrespect --based on my extremely
limited dealings with Prof McCarthy, I have trouble imagining
that he would have put any effort into worrying about this --
than I am about its representing a style of cuteness that is of
no help when the IETF and its work are having to interact with
other SDOs and agencies.  

I'm also more anxious that we not do this sort of naming again
than I am about this particular WG and name.  Although, if the
WG is in a recharter phase (as indicated in another note), it
might be a good time to make a change, changing a WG name always
involves some disruption and confusion.  Those who are closer to
the WG and its work than I am presumably have opinions about the
costs of making a change; I really do not even pretend to be
able to make that assessment.

   john

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:25:01 -0700

>> First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has
>> implemented Lisp (the programming language) at least four times, and
>> who views Dr. McCarthy as a hero I disagree that name is problematic
>> or disrespectful. And I almost take offense in the claim that this is
>> a generational thing.
> 
> And frankly, if there's disrespect to be found here, IMO it lies in
> using this sad event as a proxy to criticize some IETF work some
> people apparently don't like.

<aol>

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:10:32 +1100

I will continue under "Re: Misnamed WGs, e.g. LISP != Loc/ID Split"
since this does not concern John McCarthy or the LISP language.

BTW, the "[IETF]" is a subject header my maildrop filter adds to this
list.  Other IETF/IRTF lists have a header, but not this main IETF list.

  - Robin

RW>> Hi Luigi,
RW>>
RW>> You wrote:
RW>>
RW>>> this is your personal interpretation not what I said.
RW>>
RW>> Sure - can you provide a more accurate interpretation?

LI> Thanks, but no thanks. I do not want to be  dragged in such kind
LI> of discussion.
LI>
LI> I expressed my opinion, please do not attribute to me things that
LI> I did not say or meant to say.
LI>
LI> Thanks
LI>
LI> ciao
LI>
LI> Luigi

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:30:05 -0700

On 10/28/2011 19:10, Robin Whittle wrote:
> list.

Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:36:59 +0200

Robin,

> a Loc/ID Separation protocol, but "*the* Loc/ID Separation protocol".

Speaking just for myself, I have not assumed that LISP is the only identifier - locator separation protocol. Apologies if something that I wrote mistakenly gave that impression. As you know, there are several identifier - locator separation architectures, with very different designs and characteristics. It would be inappropriate to claim that there is just one, or that one particular definition is the only possible interpretation. Indeed, the very definition of "identity" could range from something that looks very much just like another address (LISP, Mobile IP, HBA-based SHIM6) to new identifier concepts (HIP, CGAs) or even to DNS names.

Jari

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:45:43 +1100

Hi Jari,

Thanks for clarifying your position.  When I wrote "you are both" the
"you" applied only to Luigi and anyone else to appears to be happy with
referring to the LISP protocol as something like "the Locator -
Identifier Separation Protocol".

The "both" was not meant to include you - it applied to the two points
which followed:

  assuming that LISP is not only a Loc/ID Separation protocol,

  but "*the* Loc/ID Separation protocol".

You wrote:

> Speaking just for myself, I have not assumed that LISP is the only
> identifier - locator separation protocol. Apologies if something that I
> wrote mistakenly gave that impression. 

> I didn't get this impression.

> As you know, there are several
> identifier - locator separation architectures, with very different
> designs and characteristics. It would be inappropriate to claim that
> there is just one, or that one particular definition is the only
> possible interpretation. 

OK.  In the thread which I think is best titled for this discussion:
"Re: LISP is not a Loc-ID Separation protocol", I suggested that GSE,
HIP and now ILNP and lesser known RRG proposals definitely are Loc-ID
Separation protocols.

If no-one disputes this, then I think those who support the LISP
protocol retaining its current name should argue persuasively either
that the LISP protocol operates on similar enough principles to GSE, HIP
and ILNP, or that the definition of "Loc-ID Separation" should be
expanded to include the principles by which the LISP protocol works.

I think the first option is unsupportable and that expanding the
definition so far as to apply to the LISP protocol would render it
largely meaningless.  If such a redefinition was generally agreed to, I
would continue to argue against it, since it would also apply to Ivip.
The most fundamental principles of LISP, Ivip and IRON are similar - and
I argue that they are entirely different to, contrary to, and
incompatible with the principles on which GSE, HIP and ILNP operate.

> Indeed, the very definition of "identity" could range from something
> that looks very much just like another address (LISP, Mobile IP,
> HBA-based SHIM6) to new identifier concepts (HIP, CGAs) or even to
> DNS names.

I think DNS could be regarded as a Locator - Identifier Separation
protocol.  However, it doesn't seem helpful to group it with GSE, HIP or
ILNP, since these three apply to "every host-to-host communication".
DNS is not required for host-to-host communications, but it can be used
to choose which host IP address(es) to communicate with.

With the LISP protocol the hosts deal with IP addresses which embody
both the ID and Loc functions, just as IPv4 and IPv6 works today.  I
think the same is true at the application level and perhaps the stack
level, depending on which form of Mobile IP is used.

My initial impression of the IPv6-only Hash Based Addressing RFC-5535 is
that these 128 bit values function identically to today's IP addresses
as far as the host stack and the routing system.  They do not embody any
purely ID functionality - so there must be some separate arrangement,
implemented by applications and presumably suitable support in the
stack, to work with a multi-homed host (so with multiple HBA addresses)
on the basis of an Identifier which is presumably not an IP address.
The most obvious way of doing this would be to use the host's DNS name
as its Identifier.  However, for this to be used for all communication,
I think the responding host, receiving a packet from some novel IP
address, would need to do some kind of reverse lookup in order to obtain
a DNS name, and then another lookup of that to get
locators, from which to choose from when sending its response.
Otherwise, the recipient host must respond directly to the original
packet's source IP address, without knowing for sure that this can be
used as a locator for the host whose DNS or other form of Identifier is
presumably in the application-level part of the original packet.

So my initial impression of HBA is that it could be used to support a
Locator - Identifier Separation protocol, with suitable application and
stack changes, if the Identifier namespace was to be other than the DNS
namespace, or if responding hosts were also expected to find all the
Locators of a multi-homed originating host before replying.

As far as I know, everyone agrees that HIP is a Locator - Identifier
Separation protocol.  I understand that HBA is a particular way of using
CGA.  As far as I know, CGA and/or HBA are examples of the sorts of
mechanisms you could use in building a complete Locator - Identifier
protocol, but which do not in themselves constitute a complete such
protocol with the aim as GSE, HIP and ILNP: to apply to "every
host-to-host communication".

I recall a difficulty with ILNP and I guess GSE and HIP not being able
to use their own multihoming protocol for the necessary mapping lookups
- so by "every host-to-host communication" I mean all application and
stack-level communications other than these lookups which are intrinsic
to the Loc-ID Separation protocol itself.

  - Robin

---

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:23:26 -0500

C'mon folks, I'm sure no one in the WG ever intended to be disrespectful to John McCarthy.  Like McCarthy all those years ago, they just wanted some good clean fun making fun of people with speech impediments.  -- Nathaniel

PS -- Yes, this was a joke, but I'm old enough to remember that some people really were offended at naming a language for a speech defect.  People have always been too easy to offend. -- nsb

---

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:48:45 +0100

Robin,

On Oct 30, 2011, at 10:45 , Robin Whittle wrote:

[snip]

> Identifier Separation Protocol".

Again, this is just your interpretation and not what I meant to say. 

Let me clarify.
My only point, may be cynical, certainly arguable, is that I do not see LISP rename happening.

Now please stop sending around mail with the message "Luigi thinks that LISP is *the* loc/id separation protocol" 

Thanks

Luigi

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:10:18 +0000

On Sun Oct 30 09:45:43 2011, Robin Whittle wrote:
> The "both" was not meant to include you

But yet that's clearly what you said, suggesting that splitting hairs  
over whether the definite article implies a singleton, despite  
protestations from the authors to the contrary, is possibly not  
approriate either.

Describing you as "Robin Whittle, the Australian engineer" would be  
entirely accurate, yet would not imply you are the only engineer on  
that continent - merely that if there were any confusion over which  
Robin Whittle I might be referring to, that sobriquet might assist.

Similarly, referring to "LISP, the Locator/Identifier Separation  
Protocol" seems reasonable, and disambiguates from other uses of  
LISP, such as speech defects, programming languages, and so on. It  
does not imply, to my eyes, that the speaker believes it to be the  
one true protocol, any more than "lisp - the speech defect" implies  
that nobody must consider any other speech defect.

On a final note - from me at least - if people genuinely do take  
offence on behalf on a deceased computer scientist because some other  
group of people chose to name their protocol similarly to said late  
scientist's programming language, I am astonished. We seem to have  
developed a global culture that leaps to a kind of offence-by-proxy  
at the slightest thing, I realise, but really, I find it hard to  
believe that people can be actually *offended* at the name of a  
protocol. Perhaps, like Robin's confusion above, I am  
misunderstanding what the term "offended" means.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:40:38 +0100

I am sure these are the kind of "discussions" people had in mind when they suggested that we should make better and more effective use of the e-mail lists for our work in IETF...

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Cridland [[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 7:10 PM
To: Robin Whittle
Cc: IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: The death John McCarthy - LISP, HIP & GSE

Dave.

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:41:19 -0700

> and only confusion or disrespect are left.

You mean stop using the IETF as weapon to steal others service or 
trademarks? I agree...

Todd

-- 
Todd S. Glassey
This is from my personal email account and any materials from this account come with personal disclaimers.

Further I OPT OUT of any and all commercial emailings.

---

From: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:44:40 -0700

>> people apparently don't like.

So how many people here actually knew or worked with John... or what he 
was working on?  its a relevant question because there seem to be a 
number of people speaking from authority... so how many of you were 
around in the 1960's and 1970's at AI (either MIT or SU)?

I bring this up as [email-masked]...

T///

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:29:05 -0700

On 10/31/2011 10:10, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On a final note - from me at least - if people genuinely do take offence ...

Let's drop the "offense" part of the issue altogether, and look at the
other bits then.

1. The LISP protocol seems not to genuinely be _a_ locator/Id split
protocol, and it certainly seems not to be _the_ locator/Id split
protocol. (I say "seems" since I don't know, and am happy to leave it up
to the experts to determine; but some pretty smart people have put the
premise forward so I'm willing to give a listen.)

2. (and more importantly) It's silly to have an IETF working
group/protocol for a network thing that shares the same name as a well
known programming language.

The importance of point 2 cannot be overestimated. I remember the first
time I saw "LISP" on an agenda thinking "Why the heck does the IETF have
a working group for a programming language?" All such conversations
along the lines of the one that straightened me out about what LISP is
for both raise the barrier to entry for new participants and make us
look foolish, ignorant, or both.

An ideal outcome of this conversation would be that the LISP working
group recognize that however clever they may feel the name to be, time
has shown that it's causing more harm than good and that it's time to
pick a new one.

Doug

--

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:41:23 -0700

> So how many people here actually knew or worked with John... or what 
> he was working on?  its a relevant question because there seem to be a 
My hand is raised. I was a grad student at Stanford in1962 (?) when 
McCarthy arrived. He soon taught a LISP course, which I audited. I don't 
think I ever found it appropriate to address him as "John", but he was 
certainly a genial fellow, and he radiated intellectual energy and 
excitement.

Bob Braden

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:26:00 -0700

...

> look foolish, ignorant, or both.

I remember seeing the Nimrod draft and wondering what it had to do with
the tower of Babel...

In the GSE context there was Blobs of Routing Goop.

one might ask if levity is not part of our culture...

At a minimum we've got more than enough hubris to go around and if
inside jokes at our own expense defuse some of that I see no problem
with it.

> has shown that it's causing more harm than good and that it's time to

As for those jokers in bliss clue cuss drinks ecirt salud simple
speermint splices vipr grow dime hip trill paws yam forces karp roll emu
hokey jose kitten mile alto decade ledbat and storm, we get it, it's
time to move on.

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:45:38 -0700

> inside jokes at our own expense defuse some of that I see no problem

If you want the IETF to be an organization of insiders slapping each
other on the back while congratulating one another on the cleverness of
our inside jokes, this is clearly the road you want to travel.

OTOH, if you want the IETF to be an open body producing standards for
the big-I Internet, we may want to consider prioritizing clarity and
avoiding gratuitous confusion.

Doug

--

---

From: Steve Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:59:07 -0400

I was at the MIT AI Lab 1967-68 and at ARPA/IPTO 1961-74 where I funded and reviewed the Stanford AI Lab.  Later I based my PhD thesis on McCarthy's memo on situational fluents.  I also designed but didn't implement Lisp for the Sigma 7.

Later I ran research groups and insisted on Lisp as a requirement.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2011, at 3:44 PM, todd glassey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> So how many people here actually knew or worked with John... or what he was working on?  its a relevant question because there seem to be a number of people speaking from authority... so how many of you were around in the 1960's and 1970's at AI (either MIT or SU)?
>

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:59:33 -0700

> avoiding gratuitous confusion.

As with most speculative business one has to recognize that the process
will fail more often than it succeeds. Beyond the proccess that we apply
to the production of product, if the work product is bad then no-one
will use it. We can stand by the evidence prof provided the RFC series
and the existence of the big-I internet that it was found sufficiently
informative to be useful.

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:10:52 -0700

On 10/31/2011 14:59, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> will use it.

None of the above is germane to my actual point.

> We can stand by the evidence prof provided the RFC series

... neither is the fact that we've had a degree of success to date. The
question isn't, "Have we done $something?" the question should always
be, "Can we do better?"

In the early days of what became the big-I Internet all you had was a
small group of insiders, but fortunately they were able to recognize the
magnitude of what they were accomplishing, and set up some processes to
help it grow and evolve. We do both them and the current Internet user
base a huge disservice if we do not recognize that the world we operate
in now is fundamentally different from the world that they operated in.
The Internet is now a crucial part of the world's communications
infrastructure, and every excuse is being made at every level for those
who are !us to gain as much control over it as they can. WSIS, IGF, ITU,
etc. are merely warning shots ... the motivation and drive toward taking
control are only going to increase as time goes on. By behaving in a
foolish and unprofessional manner we are making it easier for them.

Doug

--

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:10:22 -0700

On 10/31/11 15:10 , Doug Barton wrote:

> who are !us to gain as much control over it as they can.

We don't control the internet...

> WSIS, IGF, ITU,

---

From: Hector <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:31:03 -0400

> We don't control the internet...

... we define the internet controls. ;)

--
HLS

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:33:48 -0700 (PDT)

> ... we define the internet controls. ;)

And tend to make it difficult for others to assume control of the 
Internet.

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:43:55 +1100

> > foolish and unprofessional manner we are making it easier for them.

The IETF is in good/bad[1] company.  The US Government seems to do pretty good job
of cute names as well.

	USA PATRIOT Act.
		Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools
		Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act

	CAN-SPAM Act.
		Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act

	PROTECT IP Act.
		Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of
		Intellectual Property Act

Mark

[1] left for the reader to decide.
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:48:03 -0700

> The IETF is in good/bad[1] company.  The US Government seems to do pretty good job

If you're saying that we can't do better than the USG we should all pack
up our bags and go home. :)

Doug (I know I would!)

--