Re: [Txauth] Name criteria

Please add to point #1: No confusion … or an IETF/IRTF WG.

Now you guys can go back to counting letters 😊

From: Txauth <txauth-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 06:57
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Cc: "txauth@ietf.org" <txauth@ietf.org>, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Name criteria

I pick 6 chars since all the protocols I could think of were <= 6 chars in their short form, but I'm fine just stack ranking them.

Would we agree that all other things being equal, shorter is better?

The related dimension would be number of syllables. A smaller number of syllables makes it easier to say.

... and to argue with Mike ... because it is fun ... :)

The short form for OpenID Connect is OIDC ... and the previous version is just OpenID ... and while rarely used, SCIM is System for Cross-domain Identity Management (which as we all know was made up to match the acronym which originally was Simple Cloud Identity Management)

TCP/IP is the common term used for the wire transport. (6 chars)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 6:57 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:

I agree with Justin that the “short” criteria is overly restrictive.  Remember too, that many protocols have a short and a long name, but some don’t.  Some common ones with both long and short names are:

              Internet Protocol (IP)

              Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)

An example without a short name is:

              OpenID Connect

An example that effectively only has a short name is:

              SCIM

All of these kinds of reasonable names should be eligible for consideration, not all of which are short.

                                                       -- Mike

From: Txauth <txauth-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Justin Richer
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 6:37 PM
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Cc: txauth@ietf..org
Subject: Re: [Txauth] Name criteria

I think the 6-character length requirement is more under “desirable” than “required”. Shorter names are often better, but that doesn’t make a longer name off limits for consideration. 

 — Justin

On Apr 27, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com> wrote:

Riffing on the work done to name Perl6, here are the name criteria I propose:

Required:

No confusion with another protocol or major software project
no existing registered trademarks in related classes
Less than 1M results in Google
Short (<=6 chars)
Descriptive of protocol (this criteria is subjective)
Desirable:

Straightforward to pronounce
Easy to spell 
Easy to read

-- 
Txauth mailing list
Txauth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth

-- Txauth mailing list Txauth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/txauth 