> On 1 Mar 2017, at 21:40, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:56:12PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: >> Hi Lada, >> >> I understand your intention here, but I'm inclined to agree with others >> that it's better to stick with the term we're using in the documents. >> I'm open to the idea of changing the term used in our RFCs, and I believe >> that such a change would likely have to begin with the YANG spec, from >> which it could flow into other drafts. With this in mind, I've added an >> item to the yang-next tracker: >> >> https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/17 >> >> and I plan to revert this change in the charter text. > > Kent, > > there either is a decision and plan to change terminology everywhere > or this proposal is in my view a no go. Right now, we seem to use > consistent terminology everywhere - I do not want to loose this > property lightly.
I agree. If nobody else wants this change, I can live with "encoding", too. Lada > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
