search

ietf-rats-wg / architecture

RATS Architecture
Other
17 stars 10 forks source link

Replace 'device' with 'system component' #394

Closed nedmsmith closed 2 years ago

nedmsmith commented 2 years ago

The word 'device' is used dozens of times throughout the document. However, it often doesn't imply 'device' but rather a component of the device. RFC4949 defines 'system component' as: system component

  1. (I) A collection of system resources that (a) forms a physical or logical part of the system, (b) has specified functions and interfaces, and (c) is treated (e.g., by policies or specifications) as existing independently of other parts of the system. (See: subsystem.)
  2. (O) /ITSEC/ An identifiable and self-contained part of a TOE. Usage: Component is a relative term because components may be nested; i.e., one component of a system may be a part of another component of that system. Tutorial: Components can be characterized as follows:
    • A "physical component" has mass and takes up space.
    • A "logical component" is an abstraction used to manage and coordinate aspects of the physical environment, and typically represents a set of states or capabilities of the system.

This definition seems appropriate for most of the places where 'device' is used. Alternatively, 'system' could be used if 'system component' would be to narrow.

mcr commented 2 years ago

I think that we struggled a lot to arrive at the compromise of saying "device". I agree with you that there are composite devices which contain "system components". But, if we do the direction of using that term, we will lose readers and lose comprehension. I do not agree with this proposal. If it is unclear that "device" is a role, then I guess we could add that to the Terminology.

nedmsmith commented 2 years ago

If I were to be pedantic about what a device is using capital letter names, it is both, it's an entity (that performs the role). The Architecture is a description while normative drafts are more precise / formal descriptions or definitions. I don't feel strongly about it. But some people seem to feel strongly that device is used too much. Does it make sense to talk about how we use 'device' and refer to 4949 system component as being roughly equivalent?

henkbirkholz commented 2 years ago

We could say one time early in the text that we mean "system component" when we mean device, but for the sake of simplicity use device as a representative concept throughout the document.

nedmsmith commented 2 years ago

Makes sense.