To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
References: <155062612102.20788.8790340497411514162@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16b6768d-5a63-a6fa-9e69-5f00f6ad5d5d@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:14:57 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <155062612102.20788.8790340497411514162@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------9EB1108C21767A70585228C0"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/n0UYHWcW5VSMUOUhpF0KsTMY8-o>
Subject: [mpls] draft-andersson-mpls-spl-terminology-00.txt - please not
 "Regular"
Precedence: list

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------9EB1108C21767A70585228C0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Loa

I see the need for clarification, but  am not a great fan of the term 
"Regular". It is very much a US expression rather than a global 
expression in the sense in which you use it.  Indeed I just looked it up 
in the OED and that says (amongst other definitions):

"e. orig. U.S. Normal, average, or standard with reference to a 
predetermined scale or system of categorization; belonging to the 
category or class considered to be standard."*
*

and

"f. Chiefly U.S. (colloq.). Of a person: ordinary, normal, unremarkable; 
(hence, as a general term of mild approbation) unpretentious, 
unassuming; decent, agreeable, esp. in regular guy."*
*

The latter I think defines  the usage of the word as you are using it. 
If it is indeed the latter definition you had in mind, I note that it is 
colloquial of which the OED says:

"2. spec. Of words, phrases, etc.: Belonging to common speech; 
characteristic of or proper to ordinary conversation, as distinguished 
from formal or elevated language. (The usual sense.)"*
*

As we are writing a formal definition it seems odd to use an informal term.

"Ordinary" or "Original" or "Short" or "Non-extended" or "Single" or 
"Short" or "Standard" are perhaps better alternates, but the exact name 
is something we should reflect upon as a WG.

- Stewart



--------------9EB1108C21767A70585228C0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Loa</p>
    <p>I see the need for clarification, but  am not a great fan of the
      term "Regular". It is very much a US expression rather than a
      global expression in the sense in which you use it.  Indeed I just
      looked it up in the OED and that says (amongst other definitions):<br>
    </p>
    <span class="numbering">"e. orig. U.S. Normal, average, or standard
      with reference to a predetermined scale or system of
      categorization; belonging to the category or class considered to
      be standard."<strong style="font-weight: bold;"><br>
      </strong></span>
    <p>and</p>
    <span class="numbering">"f. Chiefly U.S. (colloq.). Of a person:
      ordinary, normal, unremarkable; (hence, as a general term of mild
      approbation) unpretentious, unassuming; decent, agreeable, esp. in
      regular guy."<strong style="font-weight: bold;"><br>
      </strong></span>
    <p>The latter I think defines  the usage of the word as you are
      using it. If it is indeed the latter definition you had in mind, I
      note that it is colloquial of which the OED says:<br>
    </p>
    <span class="numbering">"2. spec. Of words, phrases, etc.: Belonging
      to common speech; characteristic of or proper to ordinary
      conversation, as distinguished from formal or elevated language.
      (The usual sense.)"<strong style="font-weight: bold;"><br>
      </strong></span>
    <p>As we are writing a formal definition it seems odd to use an
      informal term.<br>
    </p>
    <p>"Ordinary" or "Original" or "Short" or "Non-extended" or "Single"
      or "Short" or "Standard" are perhaps better alternates, but the
      exact name is something we should reflect upon as a WG.</p>
    <p>- Stewart</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:155062612102.20788.8790340497411514162@ietfa.amsl.com">
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>

--------------9EB1108C21767A70585228C0--