Subject: Re: [manet] #2 (dymo): Terminology for reactive protocol document

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:02:12 -0000

#2: Terminology for reactive protocol document

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 On 11/1/2012 12:43 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
 > I always supported that terminology documents SHOULD be considered in
 all IETF WGs, and also I noted in my input the reasons for unclear issues,
 because of terms and some detail information which I got to understand
 after DYMO authors reply. However, I do encourge using similar terms
 within all MANET WG documents, however, terms definitions should relate to
 such specifications.

-- 
-----------------------------------+------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  Charlie Perkins
     Type:  enhancement            |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:
Component:  dymo                   |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document     |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  terminology clarity    |
-----------------------------------+------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/2#comment:1>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>