search

cpignata / eimpact-icmp

4 stars 0 forks source link

Opsdir early review by Qin Wu: 4.) terminology / draft positioning #24

Closed mwelzl closed 5 months ago

mwelzl commented 6 months ago

From Qin Wu's review:

I think terminology lacks
consistency, e.g., in someplace we use sustainable information, in some place
we use environment impact, in
some place we use power metrics? What will be the focus of this draft? I am
wondering how to position this draft? It is related IAB
environment impact workshop, it seems also more fit into IETF since we define
protocol extensions. My suggestion is to make clear this is IETF work so choose
the right terminology can avoid ambiguity.
cpignata commented 6 months ago

Terminology versus IETF work are orthogonal. I think we had agreed on using "environmental sustainability information" throughout.

However, this is a valid concern and we should normalize. Remove "impact", and replace throughout based on "environmental sustainability information" (or whatever else we agree here).

jmparikh commented 5 months ago

Thank you, @mwelzl, for filing an issue on this!! And I agree with @cpignata on the point on normalizing the terminology across the document to just remove any ambiguity problems and I think environmental sustainability information sounds just about right.. If everyone's fine, I can take this up and file a PR for addressing this issue?

cpignata commented 5 months ago

Sounds good, @jmparikh , please do!