Re: GR/NSF Terminology

Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com> Tue, 04 February 2003 15:11 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24603 for <routing-discussion-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:11:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14F99J00331; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:09:09 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14F2TJ31984 for <routing-discussion@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:02:29 -0500
Received: from prattle.redback.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24330 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:56:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from redback.com (login004.redback.com [155.53.12.57]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E42431B4DD6; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 07:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3E3FD4EA.5050105@redback.com>
From: Acee Lindem <acee@redback.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: danny@tcb.net
Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology
References: <20030130153403.2735C55F62@nomad.tcb.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: routing-discussion-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list <routing-discussion.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/routing-discussion/>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:57:46 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Danny, et al,

FWIW, draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-06.txt now uses the term
"graceful restart" rather than "hitless restart". I didn't change
the draft name but once it is published as an RFC all remnants
of "hitless" will be gone.

Danny McPherson wrote:
>>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.
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> OK, so folks don't seem to be to keen on the idea at this point.
> Given that I'm not attached to the idea of more work "for the
> sake of work" then I'll drop it.  I believe there is room for 
> commonality but look where that's got me in PWE3 *8^/
> 
>  
> 
>>By the way, I think "graceful restart" has historic precedence over 
>>"hitless restart" if you want to align terms :-). 
> 
> 
> Agreed. 
> 
> -danny
> 
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
> 


-- 
Acee

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