IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] RaF vs RAN as a TLA

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 18 May 2019 14:37 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 F07901200F7 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 May 2019 07:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Nxl2lbafg5S8 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 May 2019 07:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70D3D12004E for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 May 2019 07:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C7DD38263; Sat, 18 May 2019 10:36:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 09A30CB3; Sat, 18 May 2019 10:37:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0912ACA3; Sat, 18 May 2019 10:37:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
cc: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <a101c862-75c7-00c1-228b-278e37ba6c13@earthlink.net>
References: <155808338494.14870.18290854534956976840@ietfa.amsl.com> <31365.1558122117@localhost> <a101c862-75c7-00c1-228b-278e37ba6c13@earthlink.net>
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: Sat, 18 May 2019 10:37:04 -0400
Message-ID: <23434.1558190224@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/tyN3hOr5vQoVCxiwwUAqekr5pAs>
Subject: Re: [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: Sat, 18 May 2019 14:37:08 -0000

Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> wrote:
    > I think that using 'f' for "leaf" isn't right. What's wrong with 'l' - or
    > (typographically better) 'L'?

I have no strong recollection as to why we went with RaF rather than RaL.
I wonder if it was a typo that seemed to make sense at the time.

    > Also, I think that "RPL-unaware" would be much better than "not-RPL-aware".
    > And, then, "RuL' instead of the twiddly thing.

I feel the same way too.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email