Subject: [sidr] #5: Nit report - terminology

From: "sidr issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:29:08 -0000

#5: Nit report - terminology
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  gih@…                  |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                 |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                  |   Milestone:     
Component:  rescerts-provisioning  |     Version:     
 Severity:  In WG Last Call        |    Keywords:     
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
 naming of actors in this document still assumes that ISPs are the
 children.  children might be RIRs (parent IANA), or end sites (parent
 ISPs or owning non-end user sites (e.g. business subsidiaries or govt
 structures)).

 again, i suggest something like 'parent' and 'child', though i am not
 strongly attached to those words.

 randy

 ----------

 Yes, in the context of the definition of terms for this document.

 Would a global replace of "ISP" with "subject" and "IR" with "issuer" be a
 sufficient resolution of this discussion?

  Byron

 -----------

 WG discussion appears to have resulted in the recommendation to change the
 terms used in the draft from "IR" and "ISP" to "Issuer" and "Subject"
 respectively.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sidr/trac/ticket/5>
sidr <http://tools.ietf.org/sidr/>