Hello, list.
Juliusz and me are looking for some feedback on the terminology that
Babel-related specifications use to identify specific bits of the protocol
encoding.
In particular, Section 4.3 of RFC6126 uses "expected length" to measure the
part of a TLV before the "extra data" (i.e., sub-TLV in upcoming
specifications). These terms aren't the catchiest ever possible, but the
authentication I-D currently reuses these in a workable way. If future
specifications also reuse, this should help a reader of any Babel specification
to map the sense between different documents.
Since RFC6126 is the only finished specification right now, it's not too late
to update the works in progress with a new, better terminology. In particular,
in the protocol extension I-D respective terms right now are "base length" and
"extension data".
There's no problem in keeping the terminology consistent across the works in
progress, the matter is if it should be refined over RFC6126 or left as is.
Could you share your opinion if one of the two ways looks notably better than
the other and why?
Thank you.
--
Denis Ovsienko
_______________________________________________
Babel-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
