IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [re-ECN] Acronym for BoF / w-g?

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Tue, 29 September 2009 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: re-ecn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006333A6873 for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.968
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 kHfWCq1pRwKC for <re-ecn@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA053A6849 for <re-ecn@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.180.65.33] ([192.100.124.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n8T9HuP6035083 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:17:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-3-1030759144; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70D418041@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:17:45 +0300
Message-Id: <B56BB2A2-AECD-43F0-98D0-1457C86F1FA9@nokia.com>
References: <200909281832.n8SIWijX024923@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70D417FCE@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net> <AEDCAF87EEC94F49BA92EBDD49854CC70D418041@E03MVZ1-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: "toby.moncaster@bt.com" <toby.moncaster@bt.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.194]); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:17:56 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: "re-ecn@ietf.org" <re-ecn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Acronym for BoF / w-g?
X-BeenThere: re-ecn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: re-inserted explicit congestion notification <re-ecn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/re-ecn>
List-Post: <mailto:re-ecn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn>, <mailto:re-ecn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:16:47 -0000

Please, guys. We need less acronym proposals and more decisions. I  
really don't care much what the acronym is, as long as it's a bit  
longer and hopefully a bit more mnemonic than two characters.

We should really be discussing the BOF agenda and proposed WG charter  
instead of over-optimizing the acronym.

Lars

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email