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

Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> Mon, 12 November 2012 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7E621F85C4 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:30:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ug2nEJH3MrWX for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:30:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CC221F85AC for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:30:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qACFUf73001660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:30:48 -0600
Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (147.117.188.84) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:30:41 -0500
Received: from EUSAAMB101.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.118]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:30:41 -0500
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] What's in a name?
Thread-Index: AQHNwOqsVqU8XiJmRGOy8kKrHtrEtQ==
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:30:41 +0000
Message-ID: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE4701BEBD@EUSAAMB101.ericsson.se>
References: <015701cdc0e4$fbc439f0$f34cadd0$@olddog.co.uk> <A85A8D80-8BC3-441E-A5F1-34C308F74FC4@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <A85A8D80-8BC3-441E-A5F1-34C308F74FC4@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-127-764885259"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "<irs-discuss@ietf.org>" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] What's in a name?
X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <irs-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:30:55 -0000

I also have no problem with IRS as the WG name. Furthermore, I am confident that, as a magnanimous US tax payer, I have more than paid the royalties on the usage of the acronym. 
Having said that, the alternate name that comes to my mind is L3SDN. However, this may be considered a bit too broad. 

Acee 

On Nov 12, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote:

> for non US-taxpayers the name 'IRS' is not as negative co-notated as one might guess.
> it is in fact meaningless; - the jin is already out of the bottle (press articles, in-house chatter)
> and changing names at this point it will be likely creating further confusion;
> keeping status quo is IMO less painful;
> 
> /hannes
> 
> On Nov 12, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Adrian Farrel 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
>> irs-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss