If you split the documents into two, I'm assuming you would need to include the necessary redundancies and cross referencing needed for the two documents to make sense. It seems to me that this is a lot of effort just to put a logical easy/hard split in the current document, and that the audience for an RFC would prefer a single document. I think that lightweight LISP documentation will ultimately be developed by those entities developing LISP-enabled products (Cisco already covers their implementation in infinite detail).
To me, keeping the single document makes the most sense. On Oct 5, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Paul Vinciguerra <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. > > Add parts > > Since the document targets multiple audiences, the heading additions let the > reader chose the content relevant to their role. > > Paul > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Dino > Farinacci [[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 7:25 AM > To: Noel Chiappa > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [lisp] Intro doc - to split, or not to split > > I vote for the Part I/II option in one document. > > Dino > >> On Oct 5, 2013, at 7:05 AM, [email protected] (Noel Chiappa) wrote: >> >> At the just-concluded Interim WG meeting, there was a certain amount of >> discussion of the idea of splitting the Introduction document into two >> roughly >> equal-length document (the split being just after 'Examples'). >> >> The basic rationale for splitting it was that it's too lengthy (and detailed, >> towards the end) a document to give to someone who just wants to know >> 'something about LISP', but that the first part is not a bad introduction to >> LISP to those who want to know 'something about it'. >> >> (Albeit that the focus is 'what are the main moving parts _inside_ LISP, and >> how do they interact', rather than 'this is what LISP can do for you', or any >> number of other potentially useful documents). >> >> There are good points both ways (two documents, and one), and we had a >> certain >> amount of indecision about what to do. >> >> Since the document is _already_ structured as 'a shorter adocument within a >> larger one' (with the explicit notation that people can read just the first >> part, if they want a 'brief intro to LISP'), it seemed a natural move to >> _actually_ split it in two. Other than a certain amount of editorial work >> (inter-section references would have to be fixed), it needed little work to >> accomplish. >> >> So we agreed to do it. >> >> Hoever, on thinking about it a bit, I decided that while that would result in >> a perfectly find stand-alone first document, the second would be problematic. >> To use an analogy I came up with, it was rather like a decapitated body - it >> was so obviously the second part of something, and there was no good way to >> make a standalone document out of it. (Imagine the title... "Intro: Part >> II"?) >> The only solution seemed to be to put the head back on... >> >> People seemed to understand, and agree, that there was a problem with the >> second half as a stand-alone document, so we then decided we'd leave it as >> one. >> >> We further decided that we'd emphasize the two-part nature of the document by >> formally splitting it into "Part I" and "Part II". >> >> What do people think of this? Is everyone happy with it? If someone would >> prefer two, can they see a way to make a viable document out of the second >> half? Speak! >> >> Noel >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp *** Please note that this message and any attachments may contain confidential and proprietary material and information and are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy this e-mail and any attachments and all copies, whether electronic or printed. Please also note that any views, opinions, conclusions or commitments expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fortinet, Inc., its affiliates, and emails are not binding on Fortinet and only a writing manually signed by Fortinet's General Counsel can be a binding commitment of Fortinet to Fortinet's customers or partners. Thank you. *** _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
