Hi Murray, hi Mahesh Thanks for clarifying. As pointed out, we use “asynchronous” in some context not necessarily with communication. Therefore we intended to adjust the terminology section.
Best regards Steffen From: Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 10:53 PM To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> Cc: Fries, Steffen (T CST) <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-brski-ae-12: (with COMMENT) On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 1:49 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: [stf] Indeed, we use asynchronous in combination with different other terms. So it would be best to just leave the terms asynchronous and synchronous in the terminology section to allow combination. We utilize both terms in the document. Can you show us an instance of where “asynchronous communication” or “synchronous communication” is used in the document outside of terminology section? It's not, but he's saying they use "asynchronous" and "synchronous" (which is true) so they'll just define those terms. Indeed I found "asynchronous" tied to "transfer", "channel", and "interaction", for example, so I think his plan is sound. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
