Re: [sipcore] #2: Editorial: section 2 is really confusing

["Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[e-mail]>]

________________________________________
From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan [[e-mail]]

The draft needs a re-write to use the terms, so that it will be easier to read.  Even if it's not in section 6.3.1's specific normative statements (though it should be), using the terms elsewhere in non-normative will make it easier to grok I think.

But first we need to agree on the terms.  Just using the word "retarget" again and again doesn't help imo, when we really mean different, specific sub-types of retargeting in different cases. (for the cases that matter)
_______________________________________________

My approach is to avoid using "those words" at all, because I see them as not being effectively defined.

But I think that everyone agrees that we must have a solid correspondence between:

- the paramters, tags, or values that distinguish the different cases (Currently "mp", "rc", and "[none]".)

- the correspondence between them and the specific situations that they indicate (Currently section 6.3.1.)

- the (carefully defined!) words we use to name those situations

In regard to "the words" themselves, of course we have to beware that almost all the words we'd like to use have been used heavily before, sometimes with careful definitions (e.g., "diversion" in PSTN) and sometimes rather sloppily (e.g., "retarget" in RFC 3261).  The latter may cause a conflict between "being clear" and "being compatible with previous usage".

Dale