Subject: [mpls] using a different name for the same thing is not so clever :-) really?

From: "徐小虎(义先)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:00:39 +0800

Hi Adrian,
Please see my comments inline with [Xiaohu]------------------------------------------------------------------Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>2018年3月22日(星期四) 22:32Ruediger.Geib <[email-masked]>; spring <[email-masked]>Re: [spring] What is "TE" and the rechartering discussion
Hey Ruediger,

Our agreement may be so complete that we may get mistaken for each other in the
corridor.

Using a different name for different things is wise.
Of course, using a different name for the same thing is not so clever :-) So
digging a little to make sure we know what each group is talking about will
still be helpful.
[Xiaohu] I couldn't agree more. However, I still see that some people are happy to write drafts by using different name for the same thing which has been described in the existing drafts many years before:
One example is Section 6 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-mpls-sfc vs https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-mpls-service-chaining-03 (note that this draft has been merged into https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-clad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00).
Best regards,Xiaohu

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 22 March 2018 13:36
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: AW: [spring] What is "TE" and the rechartering discussion
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> that's a fair proposal, I think. In addition, it may help to avoid the term
"Traffic
> Engineering" when rechartering Spring. Spring needs to recharter now. I didn't
> see any emails on the list which advised against Spring policy routing and the
> related OAM mechanisms as future work items.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ruediger
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: spring [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Adrian Farrel
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. März 2018 14:08
> An: [email-masked]
> Betreff: [spring] What is "TE" and the rechartering discussion
> 
> There *might* be some disconnect between:
> - What TEAS means by "TE"
> - What TEAS is perceived to mean by "TE"
> - What Spring means by "TE"
> - What Spring is perceived to mean by "TE"
> 
> An option (although it would slow the discussion a bit - it might speed it in
the
> long term) would be to try to clarify these points with a draft or a joint
discussion
> session.
> Of course, that MUST NOT delay or derail the development of protocol
> specifications, but I think the discussion about where work should be done is
a
> distraction: until that decision has been made (by the chairs and ADs) we
should
> write drafts and we should discuss them on any and all mailing lists where
people
> lurk who could help us get the work right.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring