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

[Daniel Franke <[e-mail]>]

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