Re: Issue 29: Editorial comments from Tero
Jari Arkko <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobike |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[email protected] wrote: >Tero Kivinen wrote: > > >>>1.3 Terminology >>> >>> Path >>> >>> A particular combination of source IP address and >>> destination IPaddress (note: this definition does not >>> consider the route taken by the packets in the network). >>> >>> >>Any reason why the draft-ietf-mobike-design-02.txt and this >>document defined Path differently? The Path from the design >>draft do include the route, the Path here matches the more or >>less the (operantional) address pair in the design draft. >> >>I think we should try to keep them in sync. >> >> > >The design document also uses the word "path" in senses that >don't include the route taken by the packets (see e.g. the >definition for "primary path"). > > My feeling is that, for practical reasons, we should try to get rid of the term path, unless we use it in the route-included sense. There are too many people that will complain when they will see their favorite term misused :-) --Jari