[L2CP] Working group name: decision time

Matthew.Bocci@alcatel.co.uk Tue, 04 April 2006 11:53 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQk6A-0001Bp-TH; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:53:26 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQk68-0001Bk-Tt for l2CP@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:53:24 -0400
Received: from smail.alcatel.fr ([62.23.212.165]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQk65-0001ak-Fv for l2CP@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 07:53:24 -0400
Received: from gbmail02.netfr.alcatel.fr (gbmail02.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.26]) by smail.alcatel.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k34BrKCI001834 for <l2CP@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:53:20 +0200
To: l2CP@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003
Message-ID: <OFB98D8726.6B58C64F-ON80257142.004ADCD3-80257146.00414CEC@netfr.alcatel.fr>
From: Matthew.Bocci@alcatel.co.uk
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:53:15 +0100
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on GBMAIL02/GB/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.13aHF163 | June 23, 2005) at 04/04/2006 12:53:20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 155.132.180.81
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
Cc:
Subject: [L2CP] Working group name: decision time
X-BeenThere: l2cp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Control Protocol Discussion List <l2cp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp>, <mailto:l2cp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/l2cp>
List-Post: <mailto:l2cp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2cp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp>, <mailto:l2cp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2cp-bounces@ietf.org

All,

We've had a fairly lengthy discussion on the potential names for the
working group.

There seems to be a reasonable number of people in favour of either BAMP or
GAMP. However, there also seem to be a reasonable number of people who
would not like to see 'management' in the WG name, as it would more
accurately be described as a control protocol.

Of the other names, there were few that included control, did not clash
with other acronyms, and did not say "layer 2 control" (which was one of
the problems with L2CP).





In an attempt to come to a conclusion on this, please can you indicate your
preference between the following:


ANCO (Access Node Control)


ANCP (Access Node Control Protocol)





Thanks,





Matthew









_______________________________________________
L2cp mailing list
L2cp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp