>> I know that we tend to be sloppy in meetings and often in emails but >> in written RFCs (specifications) I would personally prefer to use a >> single term. > > So change it in the RD draft to the term we actually use "operational > datastore".
A lot of effort went into defining the terms. Having "foo configuration datastore" (not "foo datastore") is really important, because it binds to the term for "configuration". FWIW, I think that "the operational state datastore" fell out more for symmetry - because it clearly doesn't bind to either "system state" or "applied configuration" ;) The end of the 'operational state datastore' term says "This datastore is commonly referred to as "<operational>". And <operational> expands colloquially to "the operational datastore", albeit one may utter the full expansion if desired. So, the net-net (I think) is that, in writing, we have <operational> and "the operational state datastore" but, when spoken, we have "operational" and "the operational datastore". Makes sense? Kent // contributor _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
