Re: A better name than ISM

[Marshall Eubanks <tme@21rst-century.com>]

Toerless Eckert wrote:

> Ok, so this is how i perceive the problem:
>
> a) For just the technology, it's completely arbitrarily how we abbreviate
>    the "IP Multicast service as defined in RFC1112".
>
> b) From the perspective of being able to completely confuse users, it's
>    ideal to change the abbreviation every once so often. I certainly
>    would rather like to avoid this for the documentation i have to provide
>    to our users.
>
> Is there any way on how we could please converge on some abbreviation for
> the "IP Multicast service as defined in RFC1112" - and i mean an abbreviation
> that would then be at least highly recommended to be used in all IETF
> related papers (rfcs, etc..) ? Od course, everybody is still free to
> call it the "IP Multicast service as defined in RCC1112".
>
> Just wondering. Given that it's just a word, it shouldn't be too difficult.
> Up to a few weeks ago, i would have thought of simply voting on this to be
> an easy solution to the issue, but in the meantime i've learned that there
> are certain challenges associated with counting votes here in this country...
>
> Cheers
>         Toerless

Dear Toerless;

   Referring to "votes" in an IETF context (or at an IETF meeting) is a good way
to get razzed.

   I would say that rough consensus exists on SSM and ISM. I therefore
would say, don't change it.

   The worst arguments in a group tend to occur about things that do not matter, as
there is no good way to resolve them, except by fiat...

--
                                 Regards
                                 Marshall Eubanks


T.M. Eubanks
Multicast Technologies, Inc
10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone : 703-293-9624
Fax     : 703-293-9609
e-mail : tme@on-the-i.com     tme@multicasttech.com

http://www.on-the-i.com http://www.buzzwaves.com