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

Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> Mon, 12 November 2012 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bensons@queuefull.net>
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 4639B21F86CE for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:41:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 KVJh7XCUeX7L for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:41:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A68B021F860C for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:41:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fl11so7109070vcb.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:41:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-gm-message-state; bh=RajX+Im+muTBbtU+dRTTN34KLfh87xaVBMCnkfvE27A=; b=YTszIGH7y15+XoBf23kNVXZraTexyAXQZhwtgVBeXKbowJXQJpTphmUyBw6GkTXNk8 8dkZ1bWeGW6D6R0ph8cXeyBoHzjQN6WZtc3w7E31ytES+csyQwCE+NKh06Soqeuy+TC1 70m08nY56FQeW5J6Y7UkKv91zRfR2S+uqwpDyLsK2ICh2mXcRr7mStc3/Uiv5K80S+ia tY08+Q/LX7xtiGEPCk5xLZOLWes5XkPl9SYtmNTNd1TfFqLOfGw7hUz310cuB/HiQwLR KGvsdmb3FRlRNPrfMsEtzhybTXr5S3oRPnMCOfHeL4n8HHXIAQKNMixLWUgLZ4NyF5TB JEdQ==
Received: by 10.220.205.198 with SMTP id fr6mr1126168vcb.63.1352742100907; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rhalbach-sslvpn-nc.jnpr.net (westford-nat.juniper.net. [66.129.232.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dp6sm7077234vec.11.2012.11.12.09.41.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50A134E0.4090701@queuefull.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:41:52 -0500
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: irs-discuss@ietf.org
References: <015701cdc0e4$fbc439f0$f34cadd0$@olddog.co.uk> <2835D71F-AEAE-49B3-8805-99F129C3F168@juniper.net> <50A11923.4040004@cisco.com> <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4482FBF5@dfweml505-mbx> <62CCD4C52ACDAD4481149BD5D8A72FD302525617@CH1PRD0510MB355.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAG4d1rfyua9L26H9=x9Q1BPj9RzgRXv-QGX5XvyV72eg87-2dw@mail.gmail.com> <50A12F9F.2040803@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <50A12F9F.2040803@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnw4EDT5d9ls+h8zfTH2os3RNxWpVvz0hK1mCX9Cgc0kiwxSvt23qQSwAKkZtmBigFRCtD2
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 17:41:42 -0000

I don't have a strong opinion about using the name "IRS". On one hand, I 
doubt it matters much; given a little context I don't expect anybody 
will be confused about what it is. On the other hand, a different name 
might help with web searches, avoid misunderstandings, etc.

So, if the ADs aren't bothered by the name IRS then I propose we keep it 
and move forward with technical discussion. Alternatively, if the ADs 
would prefer a different name then I propose something like Routing 
Influence System (RIS) [*], or indeed any of the suggestions made this 
morning. The only thing that's important is to make the choice quickly, 
to keep focus on technical discussion instead.

Cheers,
-Benson

* ...because Routing Influence Protocol (RIP) seemed like another flavor 
of the same problem...