On 12/23/12 12:03 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> I know this was bikeshedded quite a bit -- > > A bit? ;-)
For some value of "a bit." :-) > >> and I have no objection to >> the dual meaning -- but I do think that these two paragraphs mix >> "interface" in a way that might be confusing. A "router" already has a >> management "interface" (either virtual or physical) and that is >> independent of the "interface" mentioned in paragraph two. >> Unfortunately, I don't have a better suggestion other than putting the >> word "programmatic" or "structured" in there to help disambiguate the >> two uses. However, since this has been beaten to death, and this is >> what the majority agrees to, then so be it. > > I think many object to programmatic on account of we are not building an API, > but a protocol. Yeah, that's why I wasn't terribly happy with either word. > > While "interface" now appears multiple times in the paragraphs, each is > specifically qualified. Okay, I guess my reading of the second use of "interface" didn't make it clear that it designates a hook into the routing system as opposed to a physical or logical port on which to pass generic management and control data. > I've made these changes. Thanks! Happy holidays. Joe -- Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384, | | SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP ||||| ||||| Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:.. Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867 c i s c o S y s t e m s Email: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
