>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> --On Tuesday, 15 May, 2007 11:27 -0700 Dave Crocker
John> <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Were we to deprecate every feature in IETF specifications that
>> get mis-implemented a couple of times over 10 years, I suspect
>> much of our technology would be deprecated...
John> IMO, and at the risk of again agreeing with Dave, this is
John> the issue for me.
John> If we have inconsistent uses of terminology across documents
John> that are supposed to be using the same, standardized, term,
John> then that is a problem with our review process. If the term
John> is explicitly standardized in one of the documents, that is
John> the definition; things that use the term incorrectly should
John> be candidates for fixing.
I don't see why the standardized definition is the obvious right place
to fix things. I thought we were committed to running code. To me,
one implication of that commitment is that sometimes the right fix is
for the spec to change rather than the implementations.
In a terminology conflict, this often involves moving away from the
term that has two conflicting uses to terms that are more clear.
Ultimately cases like this should be evaluated based on whether the
final result is more clear overall.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf