Subject: Re: [lisp] Comments on draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-01

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:12:34 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>

    > But if that is decided, the document needs to ... reference other
    > documents (the RFCs and the Architecture Perspective document).

Huh? The document already _extensively_ references the other LISP documents
(both RFCs and IDs), as appropriate:

E.g. the "Indexing Sub-system" section references DDT, the "Mapping
Versioning" section references RFC-6834; "Probing" refers to RFC-6830,
Section 6.3.2. (the section call-out is because that's a large document);
"Security of Mapping Lookups" references the LISP-SEC ID; a mention of MS's
proxy replying is accompanied by a ref to the LISP-Mobility I-D; the section
on "LISP and DFZ Routing" references the Deployment I-D; the section on
"Improved NAT Support" references the NAT I-D; etc, etc.

And of course all the places that discuss the results in academic papers
(e.g. sections on the performance of the mapping cache, DDT, etc) contain
references to those papers too.

So maybe there are some places where a reference can profitably be added.
But to act like the document _doesn't_ _already_ _copiously_ reference other
documents is just... way past confusing.

    > Because once you start with details, it is easy to go real deep and
    > that is what the protocol documents are for.

Huh? Once again I am left utterly lost. I keep hearing this 'too much detail'
mantra, but I am really starting to be irritated by it, because I cannot see
how it relates to the actual document.

Here are some more randomly picked examples, in addition to the LISP-SEC
example I already mentioned (3 _short_ paragraphs, in "Security of Mapping
Lookups", to cover 20 pages of the LISP-SEC I-D): in "Improved NAT Support",
the contents of the NAT I-D (another 20-page document) are covered in 5 short
paragraphs; in "Mapping Cache Performance", the caching performance work from
[Ianonne], a fairly dense 12-page paper, gets 3 medium-sized paragraphs; in
"Mapping Versioning", 20-page RFC-6834 in 4 paragraphs. Etc, etc, etc.

How on Earth is a couple of paragraphs to succintly cover the main concepts
in a 20-page document 'too much detail'? I don't believe it can be boiled
down much more than that, and have a useful level of comprehension remaining.

(In addition to which the Intro I-D has _not_ _one_ packet format in it, not
one detailed algorithm, etc, etc.)

If you could point out a couple of places where the Intro document has 'too
much detail', that would be useful.

	Noel

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:27:25 -0700

> "Improved NAT Support" references the NAT I-D; etc, etc.

Right, this is all goodness. Thanks.

> how it relates to the actual document.

No worries Noel. Many of us are currently reviewing the draft. We can give detail comments.

> "Mapping Versioning", 20-page RFC-6834 in 4 paragraphs. Etc, etc, etc.

Perfect. Thanks.

> much detail', that would be useful.

Will do. Don't sweat it.

Dino

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