I agree that stateless may not be complete enough, and just highlights one aspect of SBFD -- however, its better than "seamless", which i grudgingly concede, may sound pretty nifty, but means and conveys almost nothing.
I dont think its too late into the WG cycle to change the name -- heck, all it needs is a DISCUSS from one of the IESG members ! :-) If the WG consensus is that "seamless" succinctly captures the essence of SBFD then we could leave it as is. However, i propose that we replace it with something more meaningful, that hopefully starts with "S" so that its still "SBFD" because you dont want all developers out there to rename their variables and function names now. Cheers, Manav On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Sam Aldrin <[email protected]> wrote: > Think there was some discussion during the extension of the charter for > this work item. Not sure what the conclusion was exactly. IIRC, we found > the cool term 'seamless' and tried to fit in SBFD work into that > definition, rather than finding a term fitting the definition. > > Not sure if stateless is complete enough, but I have no opinion either > way. On the contrary, someone asked if S means SDN :D > > Sam > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 2, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Manav Bhatia <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Does it make sense to change "seamless BFD" with "stateless BFD" in the > documents? Its very convoluted to explain whats "seamless" about S-BFD. > > > > We called it "seamless" because it was simple and largely stateless. > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > Cheers, Manav >
