AW: [L2CP] Working group name: decision time
"Haag, T" <Thomas.Haag@t-systems.com> Tue, 11 April 2006 10:22 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTG0f-0006bL-Kd; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:22:09 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTG0f-0006bD-6W for l2CP@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:22:09 -0400
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de ([217.6.95.240]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FTG0d-00037X-Pg for l2CP@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:22:09 -0400
Received: from s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de by tcmail31.dmz.telekom.de with ESMTP for l2CP@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:02:05 +0200
Received: by S4DE8PSAANS.blf.telekom.de with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <24GX8YMM>; Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:01:02 +0200
Message-Id: <6439282641581441A36F7F6F83ED2ED20E9F1D@S4DE8PSAAFQ.mitte.t-com.de>
From: "Haag, T" <Thomas.Haag@t-systems.com>
To: l2CP@ietf.org
Subject: AW: [L2CP] Working group name: decision time
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:00:58 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d0bdc596f8dd1c226c458f0b4df27a88
Cc:
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, I'm fine with ANCP. I share Jerome's comments. But I think ANCP does not sound so much different from L2CP and L2CP had no reference to "Dynamic" too. Regards Thomas -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Matthew.Bocci@alcatel.co.uk [mailto:Matthew.Bocci@alcatel.co.uk] Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. April 2006 13:53 An: l2CP@ietf.org Betreff: [L2CP] Working group name: decision time 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 _______________________________________________ L2cp mailing list L2cp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp