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

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

Return-Path: <salo@saloits.com>
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 BFA543A191F for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:47:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gIYluNIqHf0Z for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from saloits.com (saloits.com [63.228.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 425B43A1915 for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.255.218] (t460-1.saloits.com [192.168.255.218]) (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 saloits.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 62C29BE0056; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 13:46:50 -0600 (CST)
To: roll@ietf.org
References: <CO1PR11MB48818A537C3EA3FC85E73C0BD8C70@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: "Timothy J. Salo" <salo@saloits.com>
Message-ID: <161a2e64-0325-5a22-ce1d-28a58888aaed@saloits.com>
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: <CO1PR11MB48818A537C3EA3FC85E73C0BD8C70@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/nEdMMbVRtnC8heUPO6xZKS0h5s8>
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: 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
leaf.

-tjs