RE: CDNP naming

["Mark Day" <markday@cisco.com>]

I fear I may have provided bad guidance to Phil on this issue. I noticed
just now that the agenda for our BOF has the name Content Distribution
Internetworking already.  I had provided that as a possible alternative, and
either the ADs or the secretariat must have chosen it in preference to our
previous name.

Since that name seems workable and accurate, I would suggest that we go with
it rather than debating further.  And it can be part of the group lore as to
why "Content Distribution Internetworking" has the acronym "cdnp".

--Mark

Mark Stuart Day
Senior Scientist
Cisco Systems
+1 (781) 663-8310
markday@cisco.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Fred Douglis
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 10:10 AM
> To: Phil Rzewski
> Cc: cdn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: CDNP naming
>
>
> 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
>
>