Subject: GR/NSF Terminology

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:40:29 -0700

[Folks, notice the cross-post...  Perhaps [email-masked]
should be the only one to receive replies, please try to respect this].
 
I think it'd be a good thing for all of the GR/NSF protocol extensions 
to employ a common set of terminology, instead of each using your own.
I believe the OSPF *WG* document currently does the best job with defining
terms, etc.., although I'm not sure it's sufficient or accommodates 
everything.  

I'd be willing to work on a "generic document" if need be, or would 
be happy if the current protocol-specific documents (i.e., BGP, IS-IS, 
OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to 
use the same terms.

Any comments?

-danny

> This is the start of a Working Group last call for
> draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt, OSPF Hitless Restart.
> All comments must be sent to the OSPF list by Friday,
> February 8th, 2003.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-restart-05.txt
> 
> My previous list posting on this WG last call was lost or
> filtering. My apologies if this is a duplicate.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee & Rohit
> --
> Acee

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:42:18 -0500

> OSPF, LDP, RSVP (dead?), VPN stuff, other?) would make some attempt to 

Hi Danny,

What are the terms/definitions that need to be common across the various
protocol documents? Minimally, I'd include:
:
    - hitless restart (aka, graceful restart :^)
    - planned restart
    - unplanned restart

Thanks,
Acee

-- 
Acee

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 23:42:18 -0500

Hi Danny,

Thanks,
Acee

-- 
Acee

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:38:37 -0500

Danny,

The OSPF document you cite defines various terms, but in an 
OSPF-specific fashion.  Furthermore, the definitions are not 
collected anywhere in the document but are peppered throughout it... 
which is fine in context but doesn't lend itself to generic use of 
the terms.

Seems like there are two things we could do:

First, leave the documents as they are.  This is my preferred 
alternative.  The docs are relatively well advanced in terms of 
specification and even deployment, and doing what would be a 
non-trivial update solely for the purpose of aligning terminology 
strikes me a being work for work's sake.  This is doubly true because 
a major terminology change creates the risk of introducing subtle 
errors to the spec if one isn't careful.  Apart from aesthetics, what 
need do you think is fulfilled by aligning the specs?

Alternately, if we do want to go ahead and change the specs, then a 
(generic) definitions document such as you have volunteered to write 
seems a necessity.  I'm not a fan of "framework" documents and I hope 
we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused.

By the way, I think "graceful restart" has historic precedence over 
"hitless restart" if you want to align terms :-).

--John

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:38:37 -0500

Danny,

--John

---

From: Magnus Danielson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:25:58 +0100 (CET)

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:38:37 -0500

> we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused.

Writing a "generic" definition document isn't (or is, depending on your
character) alot of fun. If you take a definition of some term from one document
and think it is generic, then you will missinterprent tens or hundreds of other
documents. When you are attempting to iron out a true generic definition of
some term, you learn just how screwed vocabulary we use today, and that some
expressions is grossly missinterprented and should not be in use. It is then
sometimes better to have one generic term and then one or more specific
definitions. Words like broadband, bandwidth and routing are among those which
actually doesn't mean what the datacom-lingo in vouge gives them to mean.

This just said as a kind warning on what a "generic" document approach actually
would mean if taken seriously.

Cheers,
Magnus

---

From: Magnus Danielson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:25:58 +0100 (CET)

Cheers,
Magnus