On 3/1/2017 9:40 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 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.
This consistency is an important feature of our documents set IMO.
And adding a sentence, somewhere, sometime, is easy: "the term encoding
is also known as representation or serialization"
Regards, Benoit
/js
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
