First, as someone who chartered the working group, who has implemented Lisp (the programming language) at least four times, and who views Dr. McCarthy as a hero I disagree that name is problematic or disrespectful. And I almost take offense in the claim that this is a generational thing. Frankly, I agree with Joel, Terry and others. There are plenty of name collisions, LISP is not the first or the last one, and in general, people learn to deal with them. More importantly, changing the name now would be even more confusing, and unfair to the folks who have been working on this. Half of IETF working group names are cute (and the other half I probably haven't figured out yet...) And don't get me wrong. I don't like the name too much, and would have preferred another one. And I can't claim there will be no mistakes. At the time that we created the working group, one of the IESG members mentioned the work to her knitting group and they asked why the IETF works on the programming language. That is how widely know the programming language term is. But already at that time the effort had been around for several years and was widely known with its name. I considered it already too late back then to change the name. Let me propose two concrete actions, however. First, the plenary is coming up. We should spend a silent moment to pay respect to the recently fallen heroes of computer science. Secondly, the LISP base specification is coming up for IETF last call as soon as we agree on fixes per my AD review. Please review it and make your comments on the content -- it is important that we get it right, including accurately describing its benefits and limitations. Jari _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf