--On Friday, October 28, 2011 08:17 -0700
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.
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.
Ietf mailing list