on 9/24/2002 11:45 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > However the problem is not with a lack of documentation for the terms. > The problem is with community USE of the terms. The community is not > precise. The terms do not have universal, rigorous usage, the way > "meter" or "kilogram" do. This is problematic all across the IETF. "Mailbox" has different syntactical meanings across the different messaging RFCs, for example, sometimes implying a localpart while at other times implying a folder within a mailstore, and implying some other unit at other times. And lets not even get started on "domains". Some RFCs invent their own words. One of the DNS RFCs uses a term which does not exist in common dictionaries. I've been wondering for a while if it wouldn't serve the community well for one of the I* bodies to develop a dictionary for developing and discussing Internet technologies. This discussion seems to reinforce the neccessity of such. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
