Re: A better name than ISM

[Mark Handley <mjh@aciri.org>]

>At 12:32 PM 11/24/00, Hugh Holbrook wrote:
>>I agree.  I think we should raise this issue at maddogs.  It feels
>>kind of like a nit, but I think naming is really important -- bad
>>names can cause SO much confusion...
>
>OK, there seems to be consensus that "Internet Standard Multicast"/ISM is 
>not the best name/acronym for the current multicast model.  As for an 
>alternative - IMHO, either "Any-Source Multicast"/ASM or 
>"Source-Independent Multicast"/SIM would be better.  Personally, I prefer 
>"SIM" for (as Mike noted) its symmetry with SSM (given that SSM stands for 
>"Source-Specific Multicast", *not* "Single-Source Multicast".)

SIM is a rather overloaded abbreviation, and ASM implies the receivers
have no control over which sources they listen to, which is no longer
true with IGMPv3.

The key difference is that in SSM receivers join a source/channel,
whereas in ISM they join a group (or group of sources).  The ideal
name would probably be Group-Specific Multicast, but that acronym is
taken.  Source-Group Multicast would work too, but (informally at
least) that acronym is also taken.  How about Group-Addressed
Multicast (GAM), Internet Group Multicast (IGM) or just Group
Multicast (GM)?

Cheers,
	Mark