Re: [ippm] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry & draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

tom petch <[e-mail]> writes:
> I see several candidates for a Group name
> Registry for Performance Metrics
> Performance Metric Registry
> Performance Metrics Registry
> New Performance Metrics Registry
> which seem to used interchangeably - perhaps not such a good idea for an
> I-D.

That's something to avoid -- using multiple terms to mean the same
thing.  That's *really easy* for people who have been working with the
material three or four years to do, because they all know all the terms
and never even realize that they're using various terms.  But it's a
serious impediment for someone who wants to learn the subject matter by
reading the document, because they keep running into terms that aren't
defined, and the have to guess which terms mean the same thing and which
don't.

Or in short, there's a *reason* that most I-Ds these days have

   Section 2.  Terminology

Checking back with the drafts, I see that
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-17 does have a terminology section, but
draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-09 only has the statement "Note:
Efforts to synchronize structure and terminology with
[I-D.ietf-ippm-metric-registry] will likely be incomplete until both
drafts are stable."

You really want to get the Terminology section in order (probably having
draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry (normatively!) point to
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry), and then ensure all of the text uses
the terms defined therein.

Dale