Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Padma Pillay-Esnault (padma_at_JUNIPER.NET)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 13:25:27 CST
I fully support "graceful restart"
> I support changing "hitless" to "graceful" in the
> OSPF draft to be consistent with the other protocol documents.
> I'll leave the file name the same for continuity but it will be
> "graceful restart" once it is published as an RFC. Any thoughts on
> this? This change would be based on a discussion on the main
> routing discussion list (see below).
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: GR/NSF Terminology
> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:33:58 -0700
> From: Danny McPherson <dannytcb.net>
> Reply-To: dannytcb.net
> To: routing-discussionietf.org
> > The OSPF document you cite defines various terms, but in an
> > OSPF-specific fashion. Furthermore, the definitions are not
> > collected anywhere in the document but are peppered throughout it...
> > which is fine in context but doesn't lend itself to generic use of
> > the terms.
> > Seems like there are two things we could do:
> > First, leave the documents as they are. This is my preferred
> > alternative. The docs are relatively well advanced in terms of
> > specification and even deployment, and doing what would be a
> > non-trivial update solely for the purpose of aligning terminology
> > strikes me a being work for work's sake. This is doubly true because
> > a major terminology change creates the risk of introducing subtle
> > errors to the spec if one isn't careful. Apart from aesthetics, what
> > need do you think is fulfilled by aligning the specs?
> > Alternately, if we do want to go ahead and change the specs, then a
> > (generic) definitions document such as you have volunteered to write
> > seems a necessity. I'm not a fan of "framework" documents and I hope
> > we could keep the scope of the proposed definitions document focused.
> OK, so folks don't seem to be to keen on the idea at this point.
> Given that I'm not attached to the idea of more work "for the
> sake of work" then I'll drop it. I believe there is room for
> commonality but look where that's got me in PWE3 *8^/
> > By the way, I think "graceful restart" has historic precedence over
> > "hitless restart" if you want to align terms :-).
> routing-discussion mailing list