On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:56:12PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Lada, > > I understand your intention here, but I'm inclined to agree with others > that it's better to stick with the term we're using in the documents. > I'm open to the idea of changing the term used in our RFCs, and I believe > that such a change would likely have to begin with the YANG spec, from > which it could flow into other drafts. With this in mind, I've added an > item to the yang-next tracker: > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/17 > > and I plan to revert this change in the charter text.
Kent, there either is a decision and plan to change terminology everywhere or this proposal is in my view a no go. Right now, we seem to use consistent terminology everywhere - I do not want to loose this property lightly. /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
