OK. Sorry - that one had passed me by.
Thanks Adrian for putting me straight.
I'll shut up about sparse.
/E
On 14/12/14 19:37, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi, reading out of context...
"Sparse augmentation" is a term of art for MIB modules.
It means that the table rows are not augmented 1:1. Only those rows
that are wanted to be augmented, are augmented.
A
*From:*Elwyn Davies [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* 14 December 2014 19:29
*To:* Sam Aldrin; Tom Taylor
*Cc:* [email protected]; General area
reviewing team; <[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib-09
3. ’Sparse’ is very much used in MIB and is explicitly identified. We also
added this after we received the comment as part of AD review (Ref: Dec 28
2013) that, we didn’t clearly identify ‘sparse’ auguments.
I read that comment as saying the same thing as me (i.e., the wrong
word). Be that as it may, "sparse" really isn't the right word - it
just sounds wrong to my ear. The main dictionary definition is "
thinly dispersed or scattered." . As I said previously "limited" or
"slight" would be (IMO) better if you feel it is necessary but in most
of the cases the text would not be damaged by leaving it out
altogether. Now it is (almost) a standard, whether it is limited or
sparse or anything else is moot - implementers just have to get on
with it!
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
