On Dec 26, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Why did you settle on a proposed name for the combined upper-layers area that implies it will be sleeping? +1 > This is more than just trying to pick a nit on the name. The IESG certainly couldn't have collectively missed that interpretation. > > I'm surprised at the message this seems to be sending - can you share more about what the group has been discussing and thinking that led to this choice? > > I would think it would make getting ADs even harder to be asking companies to sponsor an AD of napping. It would also be harder to get new participants to want to come to the IETF. Maybe we can take a short hiatus from our relentless cute naming and call it what it is: UPPER. --Paul Hoffman