Re: [Ecrit] Block name terseness in additional-data draft

I agree to the longer styles - per the examples, at least.

Sent from my mobile device

On Nov 3, 2013, at 9:52 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

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.