Subject: Re: [manet] Comments and Discussions on the MANET list

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:12:29 +0200

Hi All,

I think it is useful to have in each WG a defined terminology I-D/RFC
, so that there discussions be more focused and easy for readers in
the Internet community to understand. IMO, most RFC MANET readers are
not experts in the field, but still are interested to know about the
field because they are the main users/customers of the MANET
technologies.

It is understood by many participants in IETF WGs that no WG is expert
in all fields of others but still the interaction between WGs is
important to future IETF documents. Getting each WG to produce a
terminology document will help/ease non-experts in other WGs to
understand issues/discussions/RFCs related to terme-defined-WG. For
example it was admited in one meeting of MANET that security
consideration for a protocol was needed and may advise the security
WG.

>From now I will use the terms in [MAN] and [ROLL] in my
transmitted-messages (including my I-Ds), so that non-experts (may
includ me) of the community does not misunderstand the thread, and the
referencing will help to encode terms used in the message (may even
reduce discussion/transmitted-messages contents).

Best regards
Abdussalam Baryun,

[MAN]    http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-baryun-manet-terminology-00.txt
[ROLL]   http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-roll-terminology-06.txt