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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Reese and Mohammed,

This all makes sense to me. I'm slightly sad that I can't  use a term with
a rigorous definition (and PANRG has been defining terms for a while), but
as Reese says, people use the same term in different areas of networking
all the time ...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Best,

Spencer

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 3:40 PM Reese Enghardt <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>
>