IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Roll] RaF vs RAN as a TLA

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 17 May 2019 19:42 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 3D92512015B for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 12:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lp5r5KdCnGB0 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2019 12:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 504C6120146 for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2019 12:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7743826B for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2019 15:41:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1D38ADC1; Fri, 17 May 2019 15:41:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD18B3D for <roll@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2019 15:41:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: roll@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <155808338494.14870.18290854534956976840@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <155808338494.14870.18290854534956976840@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 15:41:57 -0400
Message-ID: <31365.1558122117@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/2h4xKQUgbwJFQyUKNhxHRcC1tGY>
Subject: [Roll] RaF vs RAN as a TLA
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 17 May 2019 19:42:03 -0000

draft-thubert-roll-unaware-leaves-07 uses the term:

   RPL provides unicast and
   multicast routing services back to RPL-Aware nodes (RANs)

while we used a term "RPL-aware-leaF" (RaF), which is almost, but
not quite the same thing.

Should we use a single term if possible.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email