On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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? > > rather confusing, since this <operational> notation is not defined anywhere. If the term 'state' added any value, we would use it more often, but I will change the text just to get done faster. > Kent // contributor > > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
