RE: terminology nit

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of C. M. Heard
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:05 AM
> To: MIB Doctors
> Subject: Re: terminology nit
> 
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > 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.  :-)
> 
> I'm not going to disagree.  I'm perfectly happy to interpret "trap"
> as a shorthand for "trap or inform".  I think it's a good 
> idea to stop tormenting document authors for stuff that does 
> not matter.
> 
> //cmh
> 
> 

Having been involved in a number of discussions in which I had to
explain that it says 'trap', but what they really mean is 'trap or
inform' I would argue that I see no reason why we should not ask in our
reviews for the correct terminology to be used. This is not about
tormenting document authors, but about making the language of the
standards clear for people who implement them. The later are the
customers, their interest should come first. 

Regards,

Dan