Subject: Re: [lisp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-lisp-alt-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 04:57:33 EDT

A minor comment wrt alternative logical topology:
 
Newcomers won't understand, why "alternative" is part of the name.While I  
prefer to keep the name ALT, it wouldn't be bad to give some  
explanation/excusion at the beginning.
 
Heiner

In einer eMail vom 27.05.2009 00:21:13 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

> From: [email-masked]

> "This document  describes a method of building an alternative, logical
>  topology for managing Endpoint Identifier to Routing Locator  mappings
> using the Locator/ID Separation  Protocol."

This strikes me as a non-optimal description of what  LISP-ALT is. What it 
is
is a _mapping subsystem_ - but that's not all all  obvious from this first
sentence. (The rest of the abstract is  fine.)

How about something like:

"This document describes  a subsystem for providing Endpoint Identifier
to Routing Locator  mappings for the Locator/ID Separation Protocol.
It does this by  building an alternative, logical topology which is used
for both  announcing the availability of EID to RLOC mappings, and
forwarding  requests for those mappings to an entity which is authoritative
for  them."

Only slightly longer, but much more informative, I  think.

Noel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing  list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp

---

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:12:39 -0700

> explanation/excusion at the beginning.

"Alternative Logical Topology" is used to distinguish the LISP+ALT
infrastructure from existing, BGP-based global routing system.

I would think that the normative reference to BGP-4 in the LISP+ALT document
should make it clear that familiarity with the BGP-based global routing
system is a prerequisite for understanding it.

Does the list believe that the document needs a more explicit reference to
writings about the BGP-based global routing topology? Any suggestions for an
appropriate URL beyond the BGP-4 protocol spec?

	--Vince

---

From: Michael Menth <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 20:42:47 +0200

Hi Vince,

I find it good style if important names are motivated. Telling the 
reader that "alternative" in ALT is understood with respect to the 
existing BGP topology clarifies the matter. Otherwise, readers can only 
guess, also if they know about BGP.

For instance, in the PCN WG we have motivated the name PCN in the first 
paragraph of the introduction:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcn-architecture-11.txt
This information does not harm and helps newcomers to get familiar with 
the name PCN.

Regards,

    Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Menth, Assistant Professor
University of Wuerzburg, Institute of Computer Science
Am Hubland, D-97074 Wuerzburg, Germany, room B206
phone: (+49)-931/31-86644 (new), fax: (+49)-931/8888-6632
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/research/ngn

---

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:35:28 -0700

> This information does not harm and helps newcomers to get familiar with  

OK, I will add text in the Introduction section to more explicitly define
that "Alternative Logical Topology" is to distinguish between the LISP+ALT
infrastructure and the BGP-based global routing system.

I'll include this change with others pending for the -02 draft, which I
plan to publish in a week or two, depending on how many other suggested
changes are received.

	Thanks,
	--Vince