At 8:35 AM +0000 10/24/97, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
Please fill out the following form and reply it to
<lutz(_at_)iks-jena(_dot_)de> till
1997-10-30-23-59-59 UTC. Everybody on this list (sic!) may send a message. I
will collect them and will send out the summary containing the name, the
vote, and the e-mail of each voter after the ballot finished.
Ah...time out, here <putting on the chairman's hat>.
While it is possible a straw poll on this issue could be informative, it is
equally likely to be misleading. That's part of the reason the IETF
doesn't encourage them. Good engineering decisions are rarely a matter of
voting.
Lutz, I'm sure your offer to tabulate a vote is genuinely made and
sincerely offered, but it is not required for this debate at this time.
Perhaps I will have occasion to ask you to do something like this in the
future.
There are more substantive issues to address than whether we continue with
"packets" or adopt some new term for protocol data units.
For now, I'm perfectly satisfied with the historical term "packets".
They've been in use for a long time without causing any undue confusion
with networking protocols that I can see.
Let's move on to something else.
<taking off the chairman's hat>
john w noerenberg, ii
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
pager: jwn2(_at_)pager(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"A beautiful idea has a much greater chance of being a correct idea
than an ugly one."
-- Roger Penrose, "The Emperor's New Mind", 1989
--------------------------------------------------------------------