search

sacmwg / draft-ietf-sacm-terminology

SACM terminology aligned with best practice definitions, standard references, and terminology definitions of other work groups
Other
2 stars 2 forks source link

Should we change "attribute" to "SACM attribute"? #62

Open adammontville opened 6 years ago

adammontville commented 6 years ago

The present definition of attribute: Is a data element, as defined in RFC5209, that is atomic. This amounts to refining the definition of the term without giving it a more specific label.

henkbirkholz commented 6 years ago

The information elements called attributes in SACM are actually very close to 5209. The proposed new wording implies that atomic is a part of the description in 5209. The pruned content was useful to set it into context.

My proposal is to either keep the old definition and not change the term or scrap the consensus and find a new term. I am in strong favor of the former, as I do not see how an attribute is even an data element as it is an information element, nor does the new definition provide me with any guidance how to apply the definition in the context of SACM.

strazzie123 commented 6 years ago

I'm confused. Isn't this what the SACM charter is for?

regards, John

p.s.: sorry for the delay in responding; currently in a conference and traveling.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Henk Birkholz notifications@github.com wrote:

The information elements called attributes in SACM are actually very close to 5209. The proposed new wording implies that atomic is a part of the description in 5209. The pruned content was useful to set it into context.

My proposal is to either keep the old definition and not change the term or scrap the consensus and find a new term. I am in strong favor of the former, as I do not see how an attribute is even an data element as it is an information element, nor does the new definition provide me with any guidance how to apply the definition in the context of SACM.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/62#issuecomment-351702727, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJgkSfbhEPAhaM_r8t39kvJjdeTnNuu4ks5tARorgaJpZM4Q8hZn .

-- regards, John

adammontville commented 6 years ago

The new wording does not imply that atomic is part of the 5209 description; to the contrary, it is describing the difference.

In terms of adding contextual information back, we can probably do that. I'd prefer to keep the context separate from the definition proper with a paragraph break, if that's what we choose to do.

henkbirkholz commented 6 years ago

This issue depends on resolving issue https://github.com/sacmwg/draft-ietf-sacm-terminology/issues/85 first.