Re: [irs-discuss] What's in a name?

[Sriganesh Kini <[e-mail]>]

Hi Palani, Zach,

I agree it is more than routing. But 'network' is too wide and could be
argued that it goes beyond IETF's domain. Also we should not use any
element specific terminology since this goes beyond a single network
element. An alternative may have been to use IETF specific encaps such as
TCP/IP and MPLS in the acronym but that would make it too long.  IMO
'Routing' is the closest alternative for this charter and is also
identified with IETF's activities.

I also think it is useful to qualify the 'Interface' in any acronym as
'Programmatic', to differentiate it against the plethora of interfaces that
already exist.

Thanks

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Zach Seils (seils) <[e-mail]>wrote:

>  I agree with this take.  It’s about more than just routing.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards,****
>
> Zach****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *On Behalf Of *Palani Chinnakannan (pals)
> *Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2012 3:17 PM
> *To:* Jakob Heitz
>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [irs-discuss] What's in a name?****
>
>  ** **
>
> In general,  the reason why some of us feel that we should a use a much
> generic name like INS (Interface to network system) or INE (Interface to
> network element) etc is because the  operations, data models and the
> requirements spelled out in IRS as much wider scope that the routing
> table.  IMHO,  its scope is a full network system.  By introducing a name
> at a higher scope paves way for defining several other interface to
> components of a network (routing, transport, network, NE …) in a consistent
> framework as spelled in IRS.****
>
> ** **
>
> pals****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]<[e-mail]>]
> *On Behalf Of *Jakob Heitz
> *Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2012 11:56 AM
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [irs-discuss] What's in a name?****
>
> ** **
>
> The similarity between****
>
> Routing Information Protocol****
>
> and****
>
> Rest In Peace****
>
> never confused anyone.****
>
> Did it?****
>
> --
> Jakob Heitz.****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *On Behalf Of *Sriganesh Kini
> *Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2012 10:55 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [irs-discuss] What's in a name?****
>
> PRI - Programmatic Routing Interface ****
>
> ** **
>
> Though this clashes with PRI of ISDN fame that has long been buried. IRS,
> besides the obvious clash can mess up the search results. Also, I don't see
> a good reason to include 'System' in the acronym.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> wrote:****
>
> Personally, I find discussions of what name/acronym to use a bit sad. I've
> had
> enough code review hours wasted debating the names of variables to not
> want to
> spend any more time on this sort of thing.
>
> However, I note that there was some unease about the use of IRS. If we
> really
> need to find a new name for this work (and I note that RSI is also used for
> something else) we need to find a solution soon.
>
> Can I suggest that only those people who have a strong objection to IRS
> need to
> contribute to the discussion. Furthermore, we don't need suggestions to be
> floated, we need solid and definite proposals. That way we will possibly
> reach a
> serious conclusion quickly.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> - Sri****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>
>


-- 
- Sri