Re: [PANRG] A ping, and a post-RG Last Call question (was: Re: RG Last Call: draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties)

[Reese Enghardt <[e-mail]>]

Hi Spencer, Med,

Thanks Spencer for checking in.

I agree with Med's assessment, and I would like to keep our term and 
definition.

In the past, we used the term "path segment", for what is now a 
"subpath", in an earlier version of draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties.

Further thoughts on the original email:

>  […]
>
> I would like to use PANRG terminology in a response to reviewer 
> comments on 
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-mops/draft-ietf-mops-streaming-opcons/issues/179, 
> and I don't think our use of "link" is as helpful as I wish it was.
>
> I think our definition of Link is actually Mostly Fine,
>
>     A medium or communication facility that connects two or more nodes
>     with each other. A link enables a node to send packets to other
>     nodes. Links can be physical, e.g., a Wi-Fi network which connects
>     an Access Point to stations, or virtual, e.g., a virtual switch
>     which connects two virtual machines hosted on the same physical
>     machine. A link is unidirectional. As such, bidirectional
>     communication can be modeled as two links between the same nodes
>     in opposite directions.
>
> but the NAME seems unhelpful, because many people already know what a 
> link is, and they may not all have the same understanding about that.
>
In draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties, we use lots of terms which may have 
different/alternative meanings in other contexts, as stated in the 
Introduction 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties-05.html#name-introduction-11 
:

"As terms related to paths have been used with different meanings in 
different areas of networking, first, this document provides a common 
terminology to define paths, path elements, and flows."

The above text, to me, means that even though many people already know 
what a link is and may not have the same understanding, we define "Link" 
in the context of draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties and PANRG as we do in 
Section 2.

Then, people are expected to apply our Terminology section's definition 
for "Link" throughout the doc (and, ideally, for other PANRG docs as 
well), rather than any alternative definition that they may have in mind.

Does that make sense?

Do you think that draft-irtf-panrg-path-properties needs any further 
clarification on this?


Best,
Reese