All - While I am not actively involved in i2rs, I have been watching it from the beginning and will admit the group's use of the term "ephemeral" has always been confusing to me. So from an "outsider's" point of view:
While the dictionary will define "ephemeral" as "short-lived," in my 25+ years in networking it has meant "constantly changing." I wouldn't bother with the semantic, except there is nothing to stop an implementation from storing ephemeral state persistently, such that when a box or software module dies or restarts, it can return to its last known state. And in this way, I feel like term is actually being used technically incorrectly by i2rs. I am not suggesting you change your proposed course of action, just pointing out what it looks like to someone who is not in the i2rs weeds. Steve From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Fedyk, Don Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:33 AM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: 'Joel Halpern Direct' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Ephemeral - Should we use another word - (3/24 to 4/3) Call for opinion Hi Sue I like maintaining the use of the term ephemeral and defining it as you indicated. By defining the time scope of reboot cycles etc. I think the use is clear. (I think if we used another term at this point we would have to similarly define that term too.) Cheers Don From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:02 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: 'Joel Halpern Direct' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 'Fred Baker (fred)' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [i2rs] Ephemeral - Should we use another word - (3/24 to 4/3) Call for opinion Hi all: <wg chair hat on> The draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture document has been approved as an RFC. In the review, the OPS-DIR review indicated that "ephemeral" meant more than "does not survive a reboot". They have asked the I2RS working group if replacing "ephemeral" with non-persistent (across power on/off or reboot cycles) would be a better choice. What do you think - leave at it at "ephemeral" or change to "non-persistent (across power on/off or reboot cycles) ? We will have a 1 week call on This would mean every place that "ephemeral" is listed, the authors would replace with "non-persistent". In the first instance, we will indicate "non-persistent (across power on/off or reboot cycles). <wg chair hat off> As the author, I think we are better to define ephemeral at the beginning as "non-persistent (across power on /off or reboot). Changing the definition at this point, I suspect will simply confuse people. Sue Hares
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
