Subject: [sacm] [sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology] Is it possible to reduce the size of "SACM Component"? (#60)

From: adammontville <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:55:29 +0000 (UTC)

The definition for `SACM Component` is large. It starts by defining `component` (from I2NSF), which is not a good idea (`component` can be defined as referencing the I2NSF definition, but elsewhere in the terminology). If we pull that out, then we could define `SACM Component` as: `a component composed of SACM functions`, which presumes that `SACM functions` is elsewhere defined. I think this example gets the idea across, however.

Again, I would ask of this term whether it's really necessary? If `component` has a solid definition in I2NSF we reference, then when reading "SACM component" I would probably call that good enough and not need a definition. What, aside from the "composed of SACM functions" (which is easily and reasonably inferred), is the difference in SACM Component that makes us want to define it? 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/60