Re: [Ecrit] Block name terseness in additional-data draft
James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com> Sun, 03 November 2013 19:23 UTC
Return-Path: <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB44911E8226 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:23:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.415, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hn6DIgvY14l7 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9B911E8190 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:23:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id g10so5864030pdj.34 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:23:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=P7JxrTikc1PmUbiN8BayvS5nQ1AazT5tv/+mAwr/SUI=; b=Ei4F8VKNrLhYC+KAmnpFyz0IynyNAV+ixf1jbMwu3YX9QOvMaaBohoa0dtADbZ3Y/M Aig3tbc/GRHuV+q69QAD57zc+icTkZB0o6SOGV9ksbiW+H4y740jqcJQPEY+zRZdhWBx w5i8dzXHexD9HnYWnFdQFmclhiKx2EatvPiql1bxkCKYzsoDkyJm+ia81Fo1a2SnP2s3 yIzMBp+x9/Uv+8x5tTWjYQXtDlsPiygnLokjoBTFhrpc9jtFtYuFlXupUSZV6RAU3bWe TWTOeaeQ/tXlULrqrwepnz4huXgR1iLSjJVyZz0BT13oEvGwcKIQUAw7Hy/tXqIYZMeK joGQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.225.9 with SMTP id rg9mr14139873pbc.122.1383506635500; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:23:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.14] (124-149-67-181.dyn.iinet.net.au. [124.149.67.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nj9sm23631359pbc.13.2013.11.03.11.23.53 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 11:23:54 -0800 (PST)
References: <p06240603ce9c338bedb6@dhcp-9302.meeting.ietf.org> <52768D39.3050005@omnitor.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <52768D39.3050005@omnitor.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <ABAEBFEB-D2A0-4CBE-9C16-D3F60C2D8AD2@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (10B329)
From: James Winterbottom <a.james.winterbottom@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 06:23:52 +1100
To: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Cc: "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Block name terseness in additional-data draft
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 19:23:57 -0000
+1 Sent from my iPad On 04/11/2013, at 4:51 AM, Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> wrote: > I agree, the longer look better. > /Gunnar > On 2013-11-03 18:15, Randall Gellens wrote: >> I noticed that we are not consistent in the degree of terseness of the block names. We have: >> >> o ProviderInfo >> o SvcInfo >> o DevInfo >> o SubInfo >> >> I wonder if people feel we should have a consistent terseness level, and if so, consistently more or less so. E.g., perhaps we should go with less terse and have: >> >> o ProviderInfo >> o ServiceInfo >> o DeviceInfo >> o SubscriberInfo >> >> Or, perhaps we should go with more terse and have: >> >> o PrvdrInfo >> o SvcInfo >> o DevInfo >> o SubInfo >> >> Personally, I'm inclined towards spending the extra few octets and going with the less terse names, as I suspect this may be easier for people to remember, and perhaps less likely to have spelling errors in implementations. But I'd really like to know what others in the group think. > > _______________________________________________ > Ecrit mailing list > Ecrit@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
- [Ecrit] Block name terseness in additional-data d… Randall Gellens
- Re: [Ecrit] Block name terseness in additional-da… Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [Ecrit] Block name terseness in additional-da… Roger Marshall
- Re: [Ecrit] Block name terseness in additional-da… James Winterbottom