Re: CDNP naming

[Fred Douglis <douglis@research.att.com>]

Phil,

I agree by and large with your summary.  And at one point, you suggested 
"content internetworking" as an alternative.  In fact, I'm not sure if that was
mentioned previously, but in one of the strawman calls, we had the same 
discussion and I threw out "Content Distribution Internetworking", intended as 
tongue-in-cheek, but it seemed like people picked up on it.  While in the 
drafts, it didn't end up taking hold, I'd already mentioned it to the person 
in charge of AT&T's CDN (from the business perspective) and I've heard him 
using that term in place of "peering" since then.

I believe that one of the major stumbling blocks to the term "peering" is the 
relationship with settlements, and the question of whether it is bilateral.  
The CDNP BOF clearly covers cases where traditional "peering" doesn't apply, 
so I hope when it's chartered as a working group, the name better reflects the 
spectrum of possibilities.

Fred