> From: Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> An ideal outcome of this conversation would be that the LISP working
> group recognize that however clever they may feel the name to be,
> time has shown that it's causing more harm than good and that it's
> time to pick a new one.
Are you talking about just changing the name of the WG, or of the protocol
too? I assume the latter, since doing just the WG would be even more
confusing.
Look, the name has its issues, but it's years too late (quite a few years,
as a matter of fact) to be bringing that up. In addition to numerous
documents, conference papers, etc, it's all over the place: in user
documentation, in command interfaces (and thus in users' minds), and even
(given the latter) in configuration files for any number of deployed boxes.
Changing it now is just utterly non-feasible (given the miniscule
benefits, versus the massive costs), and suggestions for such are a total
non-starter. Any discussion here of changing it is an utter, futile, waste
of time.
Now, can we please stop this? Next time, complain when the first ID is
written, not 5 years later. Thank you.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf