Hi Michael, I don't think that every term must and can be self-explanatory. We develop our dictionary through the development of explicitly defined terms. That is what we use Terminology section in our drafts for. And, AFAICS, it is normal to expect that anyone interested in the field, in the particular application or protocol, read all the relevant documents to learn about the principles as well as the dictionary used.
Regards, Greg On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 3:20β―PM Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > For example, Michael indicated that he wished he had a better name > for > > "Virtual In-Band OAM" (I still donβt digest what does that mean > > actually). I also indicated that I wished I had terms for the > following > > when I edited RFC 9451: > > The fact that you don't know what it means from the term means that we got > something wrong in the name in my opinion :-) > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IΓΈT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
