On Dec 26, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Why did you settle on a proposed name for the combined upper-layers area that
implies it will be sleeping?
+1
This is more than just trying to pick a nit on the name. The IESG certainly
couldn't have collectively missed that interpretation.
I'm surprised at the message this seems to be sending - can you share more
about what the group has been discussing and thinking that led to this choice?
I would think it would make getting ADs even harder to be asking companies to
sponsor an AD of napping.
It would also be harder to get new participants to want to come to the IETF.
Maybe we can take a short hiatus from our relentless cute naming and call it
what it is: UPPER.
--Paul Hoffman