RE: terminology nit

["Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <dromasca@avaya.com>]

If this is a new document, I do not see the reason why not to advice the
editors to use the correct terminology. 

I believe that we should be 'tolerant' only in cases when the documents
are re-spinning of older documents, with object names already in use.  

Regards,

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:06 PM
> To: MIB Doctors
> Subject: terminology nit
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I noticed in this MIB in IETF Last Call that the term "trap" 
> is used instead of "notification" in several MIB objects.  Is 
> this important enough or can we officially accommodate this 
> very common mistake?
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-l3vpn-vr-mib-04.txt
> 
> I don't want to tell them "trap is wrong -- use notification 
> because that means trap or inform".  They don't care about that.
> I would rather let it slide and accept that "trap" is a 
> generic term in the wider SNMP community. 
> 
> I expect MIB Doctors to disagree, because you're all SNMP experts.
> (Then one of you can point it out to the L3VPN WG.  :-)
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
>