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

"Timothy J. Salo" <> Mon, 14 December 2020 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA543A191F for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:47:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gIYluNIqHf0Z for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 425B43A1915 for <>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62C29BE0056; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:46:50 -0600 (CST)
References: <>
From: "Timothy J. Salo" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:46:49 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] RPL-Unaware-Leaf or RPL-Unaware Leaf ?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 19:47:22 -0000

On 12/14/2020 9:08 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Dear all:
> We just got this remark in Elwyn’s review of the RUL draft:
>> s1, s2.2, s2.3: The term defined in [USEofRPLinfo] is RPL-Unaware-Leaf rather
>> than RPL-Unaware Leaf: s/RPL-Unaware Leaf/RPL-Unaware Leaf/ (3 places).
>> Similarly s/RPL-Aware Leaf/RPL-Aware-Leaf/ (1 place) and s/RPL-Aware
>> Node/RPL-Aware-node/ (2 places).
> I wondered, in terms of English which makes more sense?
> We can fix either draft. I can’t understand why useofrplinfo has a ‘–‘ 
> between aware and leaf?

The rules for hyphens in English include:

o Use a hyphen to join two or more words serving as a single adjective
   before a noun.

So, "RPL-Unaware Leaf" would be better than "RPL-Unaware-Leaf".
Hyphenating "RPL Unaware Leaf Node" might be, in my opinion, a bit more
ambiguous: Do you mean "RPL-Unaware-Leaf Node" or
"RPL-Unaware Leaf-Node".

Another of the hyphenation rules is:

o Use a hyphen to avoid confusion.

This might rule might provide some insight into "RPL-Unaware-Leaf Node"
or "RPL-Unaware Leaf-Node".  In this document, I think that
"RPL-Unaware Leaf Node" would be preferred, because that we all
understand that "Leaf Node" is a essentially single term.

In general, I don't think there should be a hyphen between aware and