Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

hmm.. i fear that if we don't define a protocol name, people will
simply call it "the ABOVE protocol," so we'll get a de facto name.

and, there are several places in the existing drafts that use the term
OGP, replacing that string with "this protocol" or "the protocol
defined by ABOVE" would get kind of old.

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.

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Joshua Bell<josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:
> It seems like we're close on draft charter text; the recent discussion has
> generated some good additions and clarifications to the text. We still need
> a name, though.
>
> Given a lack of consensus on any of the proposals for a protocol name, I
> suggest we reduce the problem to just a group name, and defer any protocol
> naming for now.
>
> * The working group name is for "casual" use; i.e. it will never be
> published in an RFC
> * The working group should have a limited lifetime, and dissolve; so
> something "eternal" or "ideal" is actually a bad idea
> * It should be clear how to pronounce and spell, so that it can be
> communicated in voice
> * It should be recognizable when seen on an IETF agenda
>
> I agree with Morgaine's points earlier on this thread about names, but feel
> they primarily apply to protocol names, except for the excellent suggestion
> that this be something relatively unique in Google searches. That is
> somewhat in (healthy) conflict with the above points, though.
>
> Going back to Infinity's suggestion of listing top choices, here are mine
> from the floated proposals. I don't really have a #3. Again, I'm focusing on
> proposed working group names only, so in context these would be
>
> 1. Agent Based Open Virtual Environments Working Group - ABOVE ("above")
> 2. Virtual World Region/Agent Protocol Working Group - VWRAP ("v-wrap")
>
> If you believe that the latest rev of the draft charter text is acceptable
> as a basis for forming a working group (and remember, a group can
> re-charter!), please reply with your top picks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>