Re: GR/NSF Terminology

Danny,

The OSPF document you cite defines various terms, but in an 
OSPF-specific fashion.  Furthermore, the definitions are not 
collected anywhere in the document but are peppered throughout it... 
which is fine in context but doesn't lend itself to generic use of 
the terms.

Seems like there are two things we could do:

First, leave the documents as they are.  This is my preferred 
alternative.  The docs are relatively well advanced in terms of 
specification and even deployment, and doing what would be a 
non-trivial update solely for the purpose of aligning terminology 
strikes me a being work for work's sake.  This is doubly true because 
a major terminology change creates the risk of introducing subtle 
errors to the spec if one isn't careful.  Apart from aesthetics, what 
need do you think is fulfilled by aligning the specs?

Alternately, if we do want to go ahead and change the specs, then a 
(generic) definitions document such as you have volunteered to write 
seems a necessity.  I'm not a fan of "framework" documents and I hope 
we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused.

By the way, I think "graceful restart" has historic precedence over 
"hitless restart" if you want to align terms :-).

--John

At 1:40 PM -0700 1/29/03, Danny McPherson wrote:
>[Folks, notice the cross-post...  Perhaps routing-discussion@ietf.org
>should be the only one to receive replies, please try to respect this].
>
>I think it'd be a good thing for all of the GR/NSF protocol extensions
>to employ a common set of terminology, instead of each using your own.
>I believe the OSPF *WG* document currently does the best job with defining
>terms, etc.., although I'm not sure it's sufficient or accommodates
>everything.
>
>I'd be willing to work on a "generic document" if need be, or would
>be happy if the current protocol-specific documents (i.e., BGP, IS-IS,
>OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to
>use the same terms.
>
>Any comments?
>
>-danny
>
>>  This is the start of a Working Group last call for
>>  draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt, OSPF Hitless Restart.
>>  All comments must be sent to the OSPF list by Friday,
>>  February 8th, 2003.
>>
>>  A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt
>>
>>  My previous list posting on this WG last call was lost or
>>  filtering. My apologies if this is a duplicate.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>  Acee & Rohit
>>  --
>>  Acee

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion