IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Sat, 29 August 2009 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163A33A694C for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.369
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jcK1m98kH7Y9 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viefep13-int.chello.at (viefep13-int.chello.at [62.179.121.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A8D3A6954 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge02.upc.biz ([192.168.13.237]) by viefep13-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20090829231313.UAV2474.viefep13-int.chello.at@edge02.upc.biz>; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:13:13 +0200
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge02.upc.biz with edge id aPDB1c05J0FlQed02PDCU2; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:13:13 +0200
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1MhX7n-00063B-GL; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:14:23 +0200
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:14:23 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: Infinity Linden <infinity@lindenlab.com>
Message-ID: <20090829231423.GB22756@alinoe.com>
References: <3a880e2c0908211129l7d9defa5od81261e3e5805714@mail.gmail.com> <479011.65903.qm@web111210.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <f72742de0908270926o6991317cw8d140a7f371e7245@mail.gmail.com> <3a880e2c0908270937j73fe7567t8779d193135d0b5f@mail.gmail.com> <4A97F4EA.2030803@dcrocker.net> <3a880e2c0908280823y564193f2n513c1e16929a4cde@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3a880e2c0908280823y564193f2n513c1e16929a4cde@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:13:09 -0000

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 08:23:39AM -0700, Infinity Linden wrote:
> but seriously, seems like we're getting close.
> 
> VWRAP seems reasonable, even though it suffers from the ATM Machine problem.

Depends, I'd just say 'ATM' and leave out 'Machine' anyway.

I never say HTTP Protocol either, I just say HTTP, SMTP etc.

Random conversation: "What protocol shall we use?", "Lets use VWRAP."
No problem.

You might argue that the WG should have a different name though.
If the protocol is VWRAP, or VRAP, then the working group name could be
"VRAX Working Group" ?

I guess I hereby propose: VRAX WG

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email