----- Original Message ----- From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:46 AM
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > So are we going through all NETMOD/NETCONF documents now to replace > > > 'encoding' with 'representation', which also includes changing > > > document titles? I am not necessarily against that change but I think > > > it is good to understand the implications that go well beyond some > > > charter text. (I did do my own analysis how frequently we have used > > > encoding in our documents, I assume others have done this as well.) > > > > I don't think it is necessary to immediately update old RFCs with this new term. I do think though it is important to stop using "encoding". People have to realize that > > > > - different representations of conceptual data/resources cannot be automatically translated to each other as the term "encoding" might suggest > > I do not think that encoding implies that encoding A can be converted > to encoding B nor do I think representation does not imply that > representation A can be converted into representation B. I agree. I think that the real difference is between those working with networks and those operating at a higher level. Just because the terminology is suitable for HTTP, URI and such like does not make it appropriate for network configuration. I would stay with encoding. Tom Petch > > - it is important to think about what representation to use for a given use case (this may influence the choice of protocols and/or tools). > > The same has always been true before as well. > > > This terminology will also help app folks understand what we are dealing with in NETCONF/NETMOD. > > I am not against changing terminology but I think we should make sure > that there is agreement, ideally in NETMOD and NETCONF, to adopt this > new terminology. The worst result would be if documents end up being > inconsistent in their terminology for a long period of time. So it is > also useful to consider how long the transition to a new terminology > is realistically going to be, i.e., how many documents are affected > and how much and when it is likely that they can move to a new > terminology. > > In other words, if we make this change, we may consider to have this > explicitly mentioned in both charters. > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
