Re: #322 - Textual Convention Names (Prefix)

On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:21:32PM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:

> I don't remember anyone objecting to Bert's Post:
> 
> "In general, when a TC is clearly generic, then using the most 
> intuitive and generic name makes sense. In most cases, such a TC would 
> be better specified in a generic/independent document 
> (or at least a separate MIB module).
> 
> As soon as a TC is specific to some technology or to some WG, then 
> prefixing it with the wg or technology-specific acronym is the way to 
> go."
> 
> Are you suggesting this doesn't reflect working group consensus?

Sharon, you wrote the following:

> > We had previously agreed that if these state objects were not specific 
> > to physical entities then they should not have this prefix. We seem to 
> > be back to not agreeing that they are specific to physical entities.

I think this is not a fair summary of what Bert said (see the quote 
above) since you leave out more than half of his message which I 
consider important. And this is why I wrote:

> I am not sure how much agreement there has been on this issue

Clear now?

[I think my position on this issue is rather well documented now 
 and unless real new arguments come up, I really prefer to stay out 
 of this debate.]

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany