Re: D103 design draft issue: terminology alignment

Jari Arkko writes:
> Ah, now I see what your problem was. I still stand
> by the earlier decisions about not using the word
> path. But... the protocol document is done (approved
> by IESG) and we're not editing it anymore unless
> there's a major reason to do so.
> 
> My original issue was that the protocol spec calls
> the testing function "path testing". So if we are
> specifically referring that functionality then perhaps
> we should use the same term. Otherwise lets use
> a more appropriate term.
> 
> Oh well, I'm not sure this is easily fixable given no
> edits to the protocol draft. I'll let you decide what
> to do.

I think we now use "connectivity test" in the more abstract general
text and then we do use "path test" when we talk about the exact
implementation issues on the protocol, so I do not think we have
problem here.
-- 
[email protected]