Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The more practical approach, considering the above, seems to progress this
> document as an RFC and use the same BCP 161 (as RFC6291) -- not sure how
to
> signal that in the I-D.
Yes, adding this new RFC to BCP161 would make sense.
I don't think that there is a specific way to signal this, except that you
are updating 6291, and you can write some text explaining why, and it would
go into the Shepherd write up.
>> Path-Congruent is a nice technically accurate term.
>> I'm just sure that congruent is a term that is easy to say. It's very
>> grade
>> 9 geometry class. ("Congruent triangles")
>> Probably it's also the case the native english speakers, if they do not
>> know
>> the term well, will assume something inaccurate, while non-native
speakers
>> will go
>> look it up.
>>
> Very open to other suggestions -- we opted for optimizing technical
> accuracy in descriptiveness. (Carlos, a non-native English speaker, who
> looks up words in his native languages too)
Yes, so maybe it's not so terrible. I agree that it's accurate.
>> terms. I thought I was going to learn more about in-band/out-of-band
from
>> a
>> military radio point of view, and/or SS7 vs 2600Hz.
>>
> Thank you -- all fixed.
> We'd welcome a citation from radio and/or SS7 telephony!
I don't have a good one; I didn't live through that.
Fidonet, Xmodem->Zmodem to UUCP to IP for me :-)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
