Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

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