Re: [Mipshop] Review of Transient Binding Spec
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Mipshop] Review of Transient Binding Spec
Vijay, Rajeev,
just to avoid further comments after having changed this. You proposed
>But if you can find some better text, it would be great. One option
would be
>rephrase "activating a transient BCE" to "converting the transient
BCE to active BCE"
>throughout the text. I leave it up to you.
"active BCE" is not a common term as well. But if you think this is
sufficiently understood
we adopt this. We could also introduce the term "active BCE" as regular
BCE according to
RFC5213. But then I don't see a big difference to introducing "activation"..
marco
Marco Liebsch wrote:
Hi Vijay,
ok, no problem, I can change this, even though we use the term
throughout the document.
Will be in the update .
marco
Vijay Devarapalli schrieb:
Hi Marco,
Marco Liebsch wrote:
Section 2.2
o Activation of a Transient Binding Cache Entry. Initiates leaving
the transient state of a Binding Cache Entry to become active.
RKo> You mean Transient to Active transition? The word Activation
is in
general confusing..
The term has been introduced at the beginning and in the terms
section. If you know what's behind,
it should be clear throughout the document. We prefer having a short
description of this state change
rather than writing always about transition between state A and
state B... Did not receive complaints
so far.
I also found the term "activating a transient BCE" very confusing. It
is hard to interpret it to mean that the transient BCE is becoming a
normal BCE. But since you had this in the terminology section, I
didn't complain. :)
But if you can find some better text, it would be great. One option
would be rephrase "activating a transient BCE" to "converting the
transient BCE to active BCE" throughout the text. I leave it up to you.
Vijay
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.