I dissent - WEP/RELAY terminology needs to be aligned

[Urs Eppenberger <[e-mail]>]

> From:     Allan Cargille <S=Cargille;G=Allan;OU=cs;O=uw-madison;P=xnren;C=us>
> To:       <S=EPPENBERGER;OU=VERW;O=SWITCH;P=SWITCH;A=ARCOM;C=CH>,
>           <S=huizer;G=Erik;O=surfnet;P=surf;A=400net;C=nl>,
>           <S=Hansen;G=Alf;OU=Delab;O=Sintef;P=uninett;C=no>,
>           <S=Alvestrand;G=Harald;OU=delab;O=sintef;P=uninett;C=no>
> Cc:       Allan C. <S=Cargille;G=Allan;OU=cs;O=uw-madison;P=xnren;C=US>,
>           <S=wg-msg;O=RARE;P=surf;A=400net;C=nl>,
>           <S=ietf-osi-x400ops;OU=cs;O=uw-madison;P=xnren;C=us>
> Subject:  I dissent - WEP/RELAY terminology needs to be aligned
Even if I receive the message three times, I do still not agree.

> 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.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^ the name of a document type has no technical evidence at all.
> 
> Alf's paper uses the traditional name "WEP".  Urs' paper uses the more
> generic term "RELAY".
Alf's paper is about the GO-MHS community.
Mine is generic.

It is very important to make this difference.

> 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
                 ^^^^^^^^ this is exactly why I do not want to use it in
                          the generic routing document definition

> 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.

I would like to hear somebody who is not in the GO-MHS community, because
he would have a somwhat neutral opinion on that.

tired,

Urs.