Re: NORM BB & PI naming

Not a dumb question ... the answer is probably one of a lack of 
creativity ;-).  I see your point about the possible confusion for 
NORM-BB vs NORM-PI.   It might actually make more sense to rename the 
building blocks document to something like "Multicast NACK Building 
Blocks"  since it is principally focused on issues related on "how 
to" make a usable protocol that uses NACKing ...

NORM was named "Nack-Oriented" to imply that NACK feedback was its 
principle reliability mechanism but not to overlook the support the 
protocol provides for hybrid proactive FEC operation and its optional 
additional mechanisms for ACK, etc to support some fundamental group 
communication control activity if applications need it ...



At 10:43 AM +0200 2/21/06, <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Brian, Carsten, Mark, Joe
>
>(sorry for the dumb question but...)
>
>What's the reason for naming both BB and PI "NORM"?
>
>Surely if it is only ever anticipated that NORM-PI would use NORM-BB
>then having them in a single document would be better. Or (as I would
>have thought) if having any number of PI's based on NORM-BB is allowed,
>wouldn't it be better to use a name other than NORM for the PI. (e.g. if
>ALC and FLUTE were also called LCT, it would get confusing).
>
>(This is one of those general curiosity questions, not at all important
>to the actual specification content)
>
>Cheers, Rod.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rmt mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt


-- 
Brian

Brian Adamson
<[email protected]>