Subject: RE: APEX

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 16:24:46 GMT

*> 
  *> There is no strict, formal, official distinction between packet or 
  *> datagram. 

Dave, 

Section 1.3.3 of RFC 1122 (to which you were a significant
contributor) tried hard to get the definitions precise.

Bob Braden

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 09:45:08 -0700

>contributor) tried hard to get the definitions precise.

That is one of many such efforts.  All of them are reasonable.  (I think 
the terminology relationships described by Eric Tomson are pretty elegant.)

However the problem is not with a lack of documentation for the terms.  The 
problem is with community USE of the terms.  The community is not 
precise.  The terms do not have universal, rigorous usage, the way "meter" 
or "kilogram" do.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:38:51 -0500

on 9/24/2002 11:45 AM Dave Crocker wrote:

> However the problem is not with a lack of documentation for the terms.
> The problem is with community USE of the terms.  The community is not
> precise.  The terms do not have universal, rigorous usage, the way
> "meter" or "kilogram" do.

This is problematic all across the IETF. "Mailbox" has different
syntactical meanings across the different messaging RFCs, for example,
sometimes implying a localpart while at other times implying a folder
within a mailstore, and implying some other unit at other times. And lets
not even get started on "domains".

Some RFCs invent their own words. One of the DNS RFCs uses a term which
does not exist in common dictionaries.

I've been wondering for a while if it wouldn't serve the community well
for one of the I* bodies to develop a dictionary for developing and
discussing Internet technologies. This discussion seems to reinforce the
neccessity of such.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:05:30 -0700

>for one of the I* bodies to develop a dictionary for developing and

It might be interesting to have a BCP that precisely defines a set of terms 
for specifications to cite conformance with, much as we currently have for 
SHOULD/MUST usage.

d/

----------

---

From: "Bill Cunningham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:44:23 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eric A. Hall" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: APEX

> for specifications to cite conformance with, much as we currently have for

I'm for that. If you seriously want to get together and write a draft for
IETF.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 01:30:31 -0400

--On Tuesday, 24 September, 2002 21:44 -0400 Bill Cunningham
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > I've been wondering for a while if it wouldn't serve the
>> > community well for one of the I* bodies to develop a
>> > dictionary for developing and
>> 
>> It might be interesting to have a BCP that precisely defines
>> a set of
> terms
>> for specifications to cite conformance with, much as we
>> currently have for SHOULD/MUST usage.
> 
> I'm for that. If you seriously want to get together and write
> a draft for IETF.

As a starting point in your efforts, please note that such
definitions appear in RFC 1122 and 1123.   It may be that the
biggest problem at this stage is that RFC 2119 effectively
preempted the MUST/SHOULD/MAY terms that 1122/1123 used for
conformance, so either new terms are needed or 2119 needs to be
revisited.

     john