Subject: RE: protocol name?

From: "Ward, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:52:34 -0400

Is there a "Gateway Information Protocol"?

Jon Ward
Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Florida
532 Riverside Drive (HOC-9T), Jacksonville, FL  32200
Voice: +1 (904) 791-6057  Fax: +1 (904) 357-8357

-----Original Message-----
From: Hussein F. Salama [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 12:01 PM
To: iptel
Subject: protocol name?

Folks,

As you know, Matt Squire, Jonathan Rosenberg, and I are working together
on a draft for the "gateway location problem." We're facing the
question: what to name this new protocol? We have the following
proposals:

1. Call it GLP (gateway location protocol). This is the name currently
used in the framework document, and everybody recognizes what it means.
However, it does not capture all the fact that the protocol does more
than just gateway location. It can find the entire route for the IP
segment of a call (the route may exist of multiple hops), and it can be
used to distribute policies between domains (carriers) on how to handle
voice calls. 

2. More representative names could be: call routing protocol (CRP) or
call routing  information protocol (CRIP) or may be voice routing
protocol (I don't like limiting the protocol to routing voice only).

Any opinions on why to prefer one name over the others? Any creative
suggestions for other names? :-)

Hussein

-- 
Hussein F. Salama
Cisco Systems
Mail Stop SJC6/3, 170 W. Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134
Voice: +1 (408) 527-7147, Fax: +1 (408) 527-1714

---------
This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and 
affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

---------
This message came from the IETF IPTEL Working Group Mailing List.

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:07:56 -0400

Before we get too many suggestions of names with neat acronyms, I'd like
to discuss the more important question - do people want to see it
changed from GLP? If so, we can then begin to discuss names.

My personal preference is to keep GLP, since (1) the framework document
calls it GLP, and its about to become an RFC, (2) its been called GLP up
till now and thats what people know it as. I agree its not the greatest
name, but its not too far off.

So, please, before throwing out more name suggestions - do people feel
it should be changed?

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       Lucent Technologies
Member of Technical Staff                   101 Crawfords Corner Rd.
High Speed Networks Research                Holmdel, NJ 07733
FAX:   (732) 834-5379                       Rm. 4C-526
EMAIL: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen

---------

---

From: Ajay Sharma <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:47:23 -0500

Jonathan:

Pl. go with what's appropriate and correct. It might take an extra
effort to go back and update the references etc., but I think it'll
pay off in the long run. Since IP telephony is in a high state of flux
anyway, if you go with an inadequate name, before you know it, you'll be
seeing  names like GLP+, GLP++, GLP* ..... 

Thanks

-- 
_____________________________________________________________________
Ajay Sharma
Ficon Technology, Inc.
Tel: 972.671.7701 x101
Fax: 972.671.7099
mailto:[email-masked]                  
http://www.ficon-tech.com

---------

---

From: Douglas Clowes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 07:38:12 +1000

Well I think that it should be changed, as it is a little misleading.

It is more of an information distribution protocol than an entity locating
protocol - the protocol is used to distribute gateway attributes, not find
the location of a gateway.

I would feel that the title "Gateway Location Protocol" would be more at
home with a protocol that, given an address (e.g. e.164 number) could be
used to locate a gateway (or terminal) that could terminate the call. The
framework alludes to the existence of such a protocol, and I suspect that
GLP would be an ideal name.

This is more aligned with a name like "Gateway Attribute Distribution
Protocol" or "Gateway Routing Information Protocol".

I discount "Call Routing Attribute Protocol" because of the unfortunate
acronym :-)

My $AU 0.02

Douglas

At 10:07 1999-09-13 -0400, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>> affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this
e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect
the views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

---------

---

From: "Jim Lynch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 18:11:26 -0400

Bite the bullet and change the name now before you go prime time - Pick a
name that makes sense now and for the future as we see it.  Would IP
Telephony Routing Protocol- TRP make sense?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jonathan
Rosenberg
Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 10:08 AM
To: Ward, Jon
Cc: [email-masked]'; iptel
Subject: Re: protocol name?

-Jonathan R.

> suggestions for other names? :-)
e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the
views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

---------

---------

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT)

> Telephony Routing Protocol- TRP make sense?

You may have something here, how about Telephony Routing over IP, or TRIP.

PatC

---------

---

From: "David Oran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:05:27 -0400

I find the name TRIP appealing.

...so we TRIP the light fantastic, on the gateways of Madrid...

...ooops, sorry.

yes, really, I *do* like the name.

Dave.

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 9:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; Ward, Jon; [email-masked]; iptel
> Subject: RE: protocol name?
>
>

---------

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:18:07 -0400

Telephony Routing over IP (TRIP) is good enough that 
the question now should be if there is any better one.

At 06:29 AM 09/14/1999 -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
>> Bite the bullet and change the name now before you go prime time - 
>> Pick a name that makes sense now and for the future as we see it.  
>> Would IP Telephony Routing Protocol- TRP make sense?
>

---------

---

From: Kenneth J Long II <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:55:28 -0400

How about Telephony Routing Information Protocol to define TRIP ?

Ken

---------