IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] [Raw] "leg" vs "lane"

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 07 December 2022 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E2BC14F74D; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 04:45:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F8FBLkH6zYxa; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 04:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 437F9C14F719; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 04:45:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C24E18010; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 08:11:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 6jZSmh9qm8br; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 08:11:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4591800D; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 08:11:44 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1670418704; bh=WGgn3U0i6iHlHXQXHPwqazt/xb441x5bFfX98np2Mfg=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=XVN61JQcNEiFfyX29KQUFBq6JW9Lii3xdENRUoKo+TwZVXkQC4HycjChkwQYwptR7 iQFjImlmaBPXhVZCmEKA/LoWqeKB+PU3MJOCvFnQ2U9e6Kl0fVFtdJGWGA5EjSOfva KpsVUPIez6IP8oyFFwfbaCGL1wpUWKzUAutAqqAU4LP6HhVhJjWBEwLmGIwmkCEYh6 qlnLaO+wJFWGRNjuqNwCOeiQloI2NesJnDqTn7WaTQxaGMwHR5iDEI3XEjW6bPMLAs B7QOItDt++wpIlMGgTz64jnc+2tgxdzd7qlQfax+GdxAQOVRoCeL1oN6BFha0FZ4Ct jzX0a7UBI85bw==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77537307; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 07:45:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, "raw@ietf.org" <raw@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp1sOMNTcZZdr5VE+8Xj=3fcgJsPMURc1c3HqtzL2LY0Eg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CO1PR11MB48818E49BF42B09B90BBCF29D81B9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAO0Djp1sOMNTcZZdr5VE+8Xj=3fcgJsPMURc1c3HqtzL2LY0Eg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 07:45:12 -0500
Message-ID: <21969.1670417112@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/1B459TQ9qzLZfYFNhUs7PWZ9Q7Y>
Subject: Re: [Roll] [Raw] "leg" vs "lane"
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 12:45:21 -0000

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > The term leg appears in existing literature (last I saw it getting used was
    > for SIP Call legs) and hence I too think it might be better to use the term
    > "lane" in the context of DAO projection. Would like to know if there was a
    > discussion/background on RAW/elsewhere about how the term lane
    > originated.

I'm not sure that lane is better than leg, but if you think that RPL and SIP
might be discussed in the same context, then I haven't got a problem with the
change.

Thinking about other contexts: railways have branch lines, highways have
bypasses, and sidewalks have Desire Lines or shortcuts.
          https://www.treehugger.com/desire-paths-shortcuts-public-sidewalks-4867870

    > 2. Section 2.4.5.5 defines "Stand-Alone Track" ... but the remainder of the
    > text uses the term "Stand-Alone Segment". There is no reference of
    > "Stand-Alone Track" except in the terms section.
    > 3. In all other contexts, the lane can be a suitable alternative to leg.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email