On Saturday, September 24, 2005 17:02 PM, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote: > On 9/24/05 at 4:41 PM -0400, Scott W Brim wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 11:15:51AM -0500, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote: >>> Signalling Applications and Infrastructure Area > > Actually, I screwed up: It's "Signalled Applications and > Infrastructure". > >> Some relationships are established or tailored through signaling >> that have nothing to do with interactiveness or delay tolerance (or >> SIP). > > True, but which "Signalled Applications" are you thinking of that > wouldn't fit into this area? Further, I can think of all sorts of > interactive and delay intolerant things that do not belong in this > area. *Signalled* applications (and the infrastructure to support > them) seems *exactly to describe the things that I want grouped > together. The problem I have is that just about every application is "signaled", in the sense that there is a control plane exchange to align state and establish paths and parameters before data is exchanged. HTTP includes both, but how about FTP, where the control port and data ports are distinct, and signaling is path-decoupled? Also consider Grids, in which there can be quite a significant setup phase during which signaling takes place. I now understand that "signaled" is just as important as "interactive" to you, so I won't suggest taking it out of the name, but "signaled" is not enough of a differentiator all by itself. I don't mind ambiguous names but I do get concerned about names that are confusing or misleading. swb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf