> Hi. I'm just catching up but I think "signaling" is not an > essential discriminator of what we're talking about, and thus > this name is in fact unreasonable. Some relationships are > established or tailored through signaling that have nothing > to do with interactiveness or delay tolerance (or SIP).
I too have concerns about the wording "signaling", which can mean many different things. In a previous email I mentioned LDP, commonly called "signaling" in the MPLS world. I could have picked any of the ITU-T Q series of recommendations (the series being entitled "signalling protocols"). However, admittedly there is some correlation between interactive communications and the need for signaling a ephemeral connection. > "Delay-sensitive interpersonal communications" seems to be an > excellent description of the scope. I originally thought so too (although I really don't like the "interpersonal") and was quite excited about the proposed new area. However, after reading clarifications that the true intent is merely to split up the unwieldly transport area, I think that OFT (Offloaded from Transport) best describes the suggested collection of WGs. Y(J)S _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
