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

[Gunnar Hellstrom <[e-mail]>]

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.
>