Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:46 AM

> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > > So are we going through all NETMOD/NETCONF documents now to
replace
> > > 'encoding' with 'representation', which also includes changing
> > > document titles? I am not necessarily against that change but I
think
> > > it is good to understand the implications that go well beyond some
> > > charter text. (I did do my own analysis how frequently we have
used
> > > encoding in our documents, I assume others have done this as
well.)
> >
> > I don't think it is necessary to immediately update old RFCs with
this new term. I do think though it is important to stop using
"encoding". People have to realize that
> >
> > - different representations of conceptual data/resources cannot be
automatically translated to each other as the term "encoding" might
suggest
>
> I do not think that encoding implies that encoding A can be converted
> to encoding B nor do I think representation does not imply that
> representation A can be converted into representation B.

I agree.

I think that the real difference is between those working with networks
and those operating at a higher level.  Just because the terminology is
suitable for HTTP, URI and such like does not make it appropriate for
network configuration.

I would stay with encoding.

Tom Petch

> > - it is important to think about what representation to use for a
given use case (this may influence the choice of protocols and/or
tools).
>
> The same has always been true before as well.
>
> > This terminology will also help app folks understand what we are
dealing with in NETCONF/NETMOD.
>
> I am not against changing terminology but I think we should make sure
> that there is agreement, ideally in NETMOD and NETCONF, to adopt this
> new terminology. The worst result would be if documents end up being
> inconsistent in their terminology for a long period of time. So it is
> also useful to consider how long the transition to a new terminology
> is realistically going to be, i.e., how many documents are affected
> and how much and when it is likely that they can move to a new
> terminology.
>
> In other words, if we make this change, we may consider to have this
> explicitly mentioned in both charters.
>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod