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

[Daniel Franke <[e-mail]>]

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.