RE: on terminology
"Ong, Lyndon" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rserpool |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This sounds like a good idea to me as well. Lyndon -----Original Message----- From: Silverton Aron-C1710C [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:46 PM To: Xie Qiaobing-QXIE1; 'Rserpool list' Subject: RE: [Rserpool] on terminology Qiaobing Xie <> wrote: > All, > > While reading some past comments about RSERPOOL drafts, the term > "name" and "namespace" seem to be at the center of a lot of debates > and confusion. I always wonder if this is due to the fact that these > two terms are heavily overloaded over the years. > > I think it might help if we: > > 1) insist on using "pool handle" as the official formal term and > avoiding "pool name" (we can continue to use "pool name" informally > of cause) > This seems okay to me. > 2) instead of "namespace", we use "Handle-space" and change > "namespace server" to "Pool Registrar" > I prefer "namespace", but I can be swayed. "Pool Registrar" sound good. > Comments? FWIW, I have a draft in the works that attempts to collect all of the RSerPool terminology in one place and weed out inconsistencies until such a time that both protocols are combined into a single IETF document. I'm sorry that I didn't get a -00 version done in time for this next meeting. > > regards, > -Qiaobing Aron > > > _______________________________________________ > rserpool mailing list > [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool _______________________________________________ rserpool mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool