I am also with Les -- it'll make a great story to tell the kids some day on what we were sniffing when we came up with "seamless" ! :-)
Matter closed. Lets move on to addressing the IESG comments now. Cheers, Manav On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm with Les -- that ship has sailed almost exactly two years ago, when we > had a most thorough and lengthy discussion about it: > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd/current/msg02051.html > > I, for one, use "S-BFD" (as there are really many fitting qualifiers that > start with "S". The docs explain the why for the "seamless" name, and the > seam being removed. > > Thanks! > > Thumb typed by Carlos Pignataro. > Excuze typofraphicak errows > > On May 3, 2016, at 02:14, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This was debated at length 2 years ago and somehow we ended up with > “seamless”. > > While I am no way invested in “seamless” – the IGP drafts have already > proceeded to IESG review – and in the case of the OSPF draft at least, the > word “seamless” is used multiple times. So you would have to insure > “seamless” is expunged everywhere it needs to be. > > Given this wasn’t shot down 2 years ago it seems rather late in the game > to make such a change. Can’t we simply live with what we have? > > > > If nothing else it will make a great story to tell your overly nerdy > grandchildren. J > > > > Les > > > > > > > > *From:* Rtg-bfd [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Manav Bhatia > *Sent:* Monday, May 02, 2016 9:25 PM > *To:* Sam Aldrin > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Replace "seamless" with "stateless" > > > > 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 > > > >
