Dear authors, As individual, I do support the working group work on this direction of writing a terminology draft.
Here I am sending my comments on the draft. 1. section 2.1, 'N=1,2' should be "N=0,1,2", to be aligned with section 3. 2. section 2.3.2, the LowPAN AND 6LowPAN terms are not explicitly explained as in other sections. 3. section 2.2.1, it seems that 'Delay tolerant networks' is a more acceptable word for what stems from academic 4. section 2.*, 'constrained network' seems already covers 'constrained node network', does any case we need to use the _constrained node networks_ alone? 5. how about specify a term on the _constrained link_, because it emphasizes the link characteristic, while 'constrained nodes' emphasizes the constraint on the node, and 'constrained network is a composition of nodes and links, either of them being constrained' Best regards, zhen > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cao > Zhen (CZ) > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Lwip] Call for adoption of the lwig-terminology draft > > Dear All, > > At Atlanta, we discussed the lwig terminology draft > (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lwig-terms-00.txt), which is short > but immediate > catch of the terminologies used in IETF works on lightweight protocols. > > We have discussed with area directors about adding this to the mile stones of > the working group. > > As its characteristics, we would like to push the document forward to make it > officially referable > to the industrial. > > This message starts a one-week call for adoption of this document. Please > feedback your opinion > before Next Tuesday. > > Thank you very much > > -Zhen & Robert > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > [email protected] > https://w _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
