Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

but above is just so cool!

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Dave CROCKER<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>
>
> Infinity Linden wrote:
>>
>> but yeah, i think what i'm saying is while we can separate the
>> protocol name from the group name and we might be able to get away
>> with not mentioning the protocol name in the charter, we'll need a
>> protocol name pretty quick so we can use it in the IDs.
>
>
> If the working group were going to deal with a number of independent (but
> related) specifications, each of which would have their own name, then
> giving the working group yet-a-different name would make sense.  And no,
> it's not the end of the world one way or the other, but it IS less confusing
> to have the wg name and the primary specification name match.
>
> The comment about a name that is too common a word, like ABOVE, is
> well-taken.
>
> I think vwrap is reasonable.
>
> (It also permits flights of analogy and other whimsy.  Not essential, of
> course, but can add some entertainment to a community effort...)
>
> d/
> --
>
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>