Re: [stir] Review of: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-10

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 8/18/16 2:19 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>
>>From my experience as GenART reviewer, I can say that usage of consistent >terminology is something that the whole IETF suffers from. But, it’s getting better :)
>
> The usage of inconsistent terminology, that is.

+1

For the specific case of header vs. header field vs. header field 
parameter, these have long been used in a sloppy way. (And I admit to 
being a frequent offender.)

Also note that while "header field" is used widely in 3261 it is never 
defined. By context it is clear that it means the same as the abnf rule 
"message-header".

Nor is there any definition of "header" in an unqualified form in 3261, 
nor (afaik) any use of that.

In informal conversation it is common to use "header" in lieu of 
"message-header"/"header field", and I would be shocked if its use ever 
causes any confusion.

I am in favor of cleaning up usage for consistency, using "header field" 
or "header field parameter" when appropriate. But I consider this an 
editorial issue, not a semantic issue.

	Thanks,
	Paul