Re: [Txauth] Name criteria

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<mailto:dick.hardt@gmail.com>> wrote:

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

Required:

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

  1.  Straightforward to pronounce
  2.  Easy to spell
  3.  Easy to read

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