Re: D103 design draft issue: terminology alignment

Sounds good! Thanks.

Tero Kivinen wrote:

>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.
>  
>