Merge pull request #112 from atsign-foundation/decisions/rename-sshrvd

docs: Create 2023-11-rename-sshrv(d).md

decisions/2023-11-rename-sshrv(d).md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+<!-- This template is inspired by https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/emblem/tree/main/docs/decisions -->
+## Rename sshrv(d)
+
+* **Status:** Approved <!-- Draft / Rejected / Superseded -->
+* **Last Updated:** 2023-11-14
+* **Objective:** To rename sshrvd and sshrv to something more technically accurate
+
+## Context & Problem Statement
+
+sshrvd and sshrv are actually tcp socket rendezvous, and are not ssh specific.
+
+## Goals
+
+- Deem if a new name is necessary
+- Make the rename as part of 4.0.0's breaking changes if we decide to follow through with the rename
+
+## Considered Options <!-- optional -->
+- ### Keep them the same
+- ### tcprv(d)
+- ### sr(d)
+
+## Proposal Summary
+
+To rename sshrvd and sshrv to srd and sr, respectively.
+
+## Proposal in Detail
+
+The two new options are either tcprv(d) or sr(d) which stand for tcp rendezvous (daemon) and socket rendezvous (daemon).
+
+The choice for naming depends entirely on how we decide to proceed with future implementations.
+
+If we want to support a single, universal daemon & client then we should use a name which doesn't contain "tcp"
+since that client could eventually support udp and other socket types.
+
+If we want separate daemon and clients for each socket type, then we should use a name which does contain "tcp"
+so that we can be specific to that particular implementation.
+
+### Update: Friday, December 1, 2023
+
+We held a secondary vote in [a PR](https://github.com/atsign-foundation/at_protocol/pull/112) and established that the naming should be generic (option 3 won):
+
+1. Keep the same name - sshrv(d)
+2. Something specifically tcp related - e.g. tcprv(d), tcpsr(d), etc...
+3. Something generic to sockets - e.g. srv(d), sr(d), etc... 
+
+In a follow up discussion from this vote, the team agrees upon "sr(d)" - sr for the client, srd for the daemon.