Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 26 December 2014 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5D331A8F45 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:50:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VkLnUaGLsFoM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:50:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CC331A8F38 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:50:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-91.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.91]) (authenticated bits=0) by proper.com (8.14.9/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sBQGobD4075299 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Dec 2014 09:50:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: proper.com: Host 50-1-98-91.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.1.98.91] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
Subject: Re: IETF areas re-organisation steps
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <549D8C57.8090402@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 08:50:37 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EE91C0E7-0ED8-4AC2-8490-EF1D70ECC480@vpnc.org>
References: <ED473823-2B1E-4431-8B42-393D20BA72DF@piuha.net> <549D8C57.8090402@nostrum.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UU564ElOx931OubF7xZMUmKDq2M
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 16:50:40 -0000

On Dec 26, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.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