Hi. I'm just catching up but I think "signaling" is not an
essential discriminator of what we're talking about, and thus
this name is in fact unreasonable. Some relationships are
established or tailored through signaling that have nothing
to do with interactiveness or delay tolerance (or SIP).
I too have concerns about the wording "signaling",
which can mean many different things.
In a previous email I mentioned LDP,
commonly called "signaling" in the MPLS world.
I could have picked any of the ITU-T Q series of recommendations
(the series being entitled "signalling protocols").
However, admittedly there is some correlation
between interactive communications and the need
for signaling a ephemeral connection.
"Delay-sensitive interpersonal communications" seems to be an
excellent description of the scope.
I originally thought so too (although I really don't like the
"interpersonal")
and was quite excited about the proposed new area.
However, after reading clarifications that the true intent is merely to
split up
the unwieldly transport area, I think that OFT (Offloaded from
Transport) best
describes the suggested collection of WGs.
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf