Re: [Roll] RPL-Unaware-Leaf or RPL-Unaware Leaf ?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 15 December 2020 01:08 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 E719C3A136A for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 17:08:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 8RbUhIvmntJE for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 17:08:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E06133A1334 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 17:08:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB1438984 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:11:10 -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 E_E_57C5het7 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:11:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2D038983 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:11:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8928665E for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:08:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0CF0DCA8-FCAE-435B-9C23-CC00DE80F42E@cisco.com>
References: <CO1PR11MB48818A537C3EA3FC85E73C0BD8C70@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>, <161a2e64-0325-5a22-ce1d-28a58888aaed@saloits.com> <0CF0DCA8-FCAE-435B-9C23-CC00DE80F42E@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:08:34 -0500
Message-ID: <29100.1607994514@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/6DfKEZg8gC3umo9BB50PLzKhAgA>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-Unaware-Leaf or RPL-Unaware Leaf ?
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: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 01:08:46 -0000

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > Ines, do we agree to change both drafts to say RPL-(un)aware Leaf|node
    > ?

    >> Another of the hyphenation rules is:
    >>
    >> o Use a hyphen to avoid confusion.

I prefer this rule, and to leave it as "RPL-unware-leaf"

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