I dissent - WEP/RELAY terminology needs to be aligned

[Allan Cargille <[e-mail]>]

Hello everyone,

I am very unhappy that Alf's PRMD Requirements document and Urs'
Routing document are both being progressed with different terminology
for "well-known MTAs that serve X.400 domains."  I do not feel that
there is consensus on this issue.  I feel strongly that it is
technically defective to advance them with different names.

Alf's paper uses the traditional name "WEP".  Urs' paper uses the more
generic term "RELAY".

As I have stated in the past, I prefer the term WEP because, although
cryptic, it is specific.  The word "RELAY" is used for application
relays, transport relays, SMTP mail relays, and gateways of all kinds.
Therefore I continue to vote for the term WEP.  If the community feels
that it is important to use a term other than WEP, I would suggest
something more descriptive than RELAY.  I would vote for a two-word
key such as RELAY-MTA, or HUB-MTA.

However, once again, I do not think it is critical *whatever* they are
called.  I just think it is a horrible (alleged) "solution" to advance
the two documents with different terms for the same thing.  I have not
heard anyone other than Urs (no offense intended, Urs) agree that it
makes sense to advance them with different names.

If others think that it is important for the documents to use the same
term for the same object, I encourage you to speak up now!

I hope we can align the documents to use the same term, and advance
them promptly.

Best regards,

allan