Most of the terms were very carefully picked to match the technical literature as much as possible. That said, the literature sometimes is not consistent between different papers...
I agree we should try to reflect the literature, and believe that we for the most part do in the current draft ( David (as individual) On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Victor Pascual Ávila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:51 PM, David A. Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not a bad idea, from my perspective. I think early on we did it to > > distinguish what we talking about from the more general term, but > > eliminating the P2PSIP labels sounds ok to me. Interested to see what > > others think. > > I agree on using no P2PSIP labels and suggest that we use P2P > terminology common in the technical literature. > > Thanks, > -- > Victor Pascual Ávila > -- David A. Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1.757.565.0101 x101 +1.757.565.0088 (fax) www.SIPeerior.com _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
