Anton, I see your point, but I am not yet convinced the proposed terminology is actually better. I have some concerns on "Tag Group" vs. "Tag". If I think about tags, I typically think about something that has a name and a value (good description for param-name and param-value). However, I associate a tag-group with something loosely coupled. In STRUCTURED-DATA, however, each name/value pair is strongly associated with the ID. It is the ID that describes what the whole thing is about, the name/value pairs "just" convey some specifics.
Any more comments? Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:41 PM > To: Rainer Gerhards > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: SD-ELEMENT names > > Rainer and all: > > I'd like to propose a slight terminology change for syslog > protocol for structured data. I think there is confusion even > in this group about current terminology. For example, we (me > included) keep referring to "structured data element", when > we mean "structured data parameter". It is hard to remember > the difference. > > I think easier vocabulary can help a standard - inside and > outside this group. Here is my proposal: > > Structured Data => Tags > Structured Data Element => Tag Group > Structured Data ID => Tag Group ID > Structured Data Parameter => Tag > Structured Data Parameter Name => Tag Name > Structured Data Parameter Value => Tag Value > > This is much less verbose and easier IMO. > > Thanks, > Anton. > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
