<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Please forgive if this has already been spoken to… if so, you can simply send the link to old mail list entries and that will suffice… otherwise…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Does anyone know the scope on why we have 2 names for this ? Seriously, was it one of those things where a vendor started doing it first (pre-standard) as sr, and then ietf started standardizing it as spring ? …or was it always being standardized pre-vendor implementation and there was a disagreement within ietf or elsewhere ? or… was there a conscious decision amongst the inventors to actually call it both sr and spring ? or is their actually something different about each one and I’m wrong in thinking they are 2 names for the same technology.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m taking stabs at this and presenting multiple choice just as I sit back and wonder why the 2 names<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I mean there must be a reason why someone thought that we should call this 2 different names.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I would think within this NANOG maillist, someone will have the answer or at least some pretty good insights into why the 2 names.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Aaron<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>aaron1@gvtc.com<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>