[Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: "Extensions" vs. "Extension Fields"

>>> Doug Arnold <doug.arnold@meinberg-usa.com> schrieb am 18.09.2020 um 00:01
in
Nachricht <4F54FAF2-21B6-4032-BC94-18E12EC84F5A@meinberg-usa.com>:
> Making a distinction between extensions and extension fields might make it 
> clearer to the reader.

What if you used "extension field syntax" instead of "extension field(s)"?
IMHO it would be even more clear. Sorry for the late response; I had been away
from E_Mail for two weeks....

> 
> Doug
> 
> On 9/17/20, 11:23 AM, "ntp on behalf of Daniel Franke"
<ntp-bounces@ietf.org 
> on behalf of dfoxfranke@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>     And furthermore my addresses for Jim, Jack, and William seem to be
>     bouncing. Oh well, hoping they're still subscribed to this list.
> 
>     On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:20 AM Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>     >
>     > The email expansions I used to address the RFC 5905 / 7822 authors
>     > don't seem to be working. Resending with those authors' addresses
>     > given directly.
>     >
>     > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:12 AM Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>     > >
>     > > Dave, Jim, Jack, William, Tal, Danny:
>     > >
>     > > draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp has been reviewed by the RFC
editor
>     > > and is now in AUTH48. I want an opinion from the six of you before
I
>     > > respond to one of the proposed edits.
>     > >
>     > > The RFC editor has proposed to change several uses of "NTS
Extensions"
>     > > to "NTS Extension Fields". However, my usage of one vs. the other
was
>     > > deliberate. When I refer to "extension fields", I am speaking
purely
>     > > syntactically, i.e., discussing the bits on the wire. When I refer
to
>     > > "extensions", I'm referring to the whole semiotic package: not only
to
>     > > syntax of the fields but also to the protocol semantics and
business
>     > > logic that accompany them.
>     > >
>     > > What I want to know from you six, as the authors of RFC 5905 and
7822,
>     > > is not so much whether you think it's a good idea to make this
>     > > distinction, but whether you *already had this distinction in mind*
at
>     > > the time you wrote those documents. If any of you tell me that
you've
>     > > been thinking in those terms all along, then I'll take that as
>     > > vindication and reply to the RFC editor accordingly. If none of you
>     > > do, then I'll accept the edit and use "extension fields"
everywhere,
>     > > because my intent here was to follow existing terminology and not
to
>     > > coin anything new.
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     ntp mailing list
>     ntp@ietf.org 
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntp mailing list
> ntp@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp 