Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue

also, i just did a google search for VWRAP and got a whole lot of "not
much." ergo, we're not competing with another common name with lots of
search results. so from that perspective, i'm starting to get happy
about the VWRAP name, even though i thought ABOVE was cooler. i think
morgaine's comments about NOT picking a common name are definitely
spot on in this regard.

-cheers
-meadhbh / infinity

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dickson, Mike (ISS
Software)<mike.dickson@hp.com> wrote:
> +1 to move the discussion forward.  I don’t love it but its fine as a
> working name.
>
>
>
> From: ogpx-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ogpx-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Morgaine
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 12:56 PM
> To: ogpx@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ogpx] resolving the name issue
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:
>
> Can list participants agree to VWRAP as "not perfect, but good enough" and
> move past the name issue to real interop work?
>
> I vote +1 for this to move us ahead.
>
> The group name doesn't matter too much, and even if a de facto name sticks,
> it's still got the Region/Agent part to it which is very appropriate and
> distinguishes it from other protocols.
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>