Hi, I think it's a good idea to give a definition in the beginning of the document. The i2rs definition matches also my definition which we are using to describe the fact, that a customer specific service "configuration" on a service node does not survive a reboot.
Just my 2 cents Nic Von: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Susan Hares Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. März 2016 18:02 An: [email protected] Cc: 'Joel Halpern Direct'; [email protected]; 'Fred Baker (fred)' Betreff: [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
