On Apr 27, 2014, at 7:37, Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/22/14, 6:43 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote: >> Edward Lewis <[email protected]> writes: >> >>>> I feel terminology of "agent" in the draft is annoying. >>> >>> I strongly agree with that. Parental “Agent” is too broad. >> >> The choice was to keep consistent terminology with: >> >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-delegation-trust-maintainance-11 >> >> I don't think we want these terminology sets to deviate. >> > We don't want the terminology to deviate, nor do we want the Capitalization > to deviate either. I have an editor note to go back over the draft > verifying this.
Is it better for a draft intended for standards track be terminology consistent with a draft headed for informational or consistent with de jure operations terminology? (I’m not saying “use my wording” I am saying that parental agent is not a term of art in practice. A term used in practice would be better. I used parent provisioning system but there may be another term.) _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
