On 7/13/2011 1:31 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Replacing a widely used term ("on the wire") with term that folks will
not understand does not seem to me personally to be a benefit.
I think Joe's point is that it's widely used as a concept, but what
it means specifically in this document is not clear. A sentence to
clarify up-front what the definition is in this document might be
enough.
In terms of this document, I do not see a problem with the usage as it
is. This is not a protocol document. The use of the current term in this
context seems helpful rather than harmful.
It might be reasonable to add a sentence that says, "In this document,
'on the wire' refers to (A) the routing protocol data itself, as well
as (B) the way in which routing protocol data is exchanged using
underlying protocols, including the headers and other meta-data used by
those underlying protocols", or something like that?
To me, that's a lot more useful than saying "this term is commonly
used" without defining in what sense(s) you mean it in the present
document.
I think it's important because the protections possible are
potentially a lot different, and if you want people to think
about only one or both, it should be made explicit.
On a lighter note, I once generated a lot of confusion using this
term with people working on satellite networks, who were wondering
what wires I could possibly be talking about since all of our links
were microwave. I guess if KARP covered MANET protocols we'd have
to protect them "on the wireless".
--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf