[Babel-users] on Babel encoding terminology

[Denis Ovsienko]

Hello, list.

Juliusz and me are looking for some feedback on the terminology that Babel-related specifications use to identify specific bits of the protocol encoding.

In particular, Section 4.3 of RFC6126 uses "expected length" to measure the part of a TLV before the "extra data" (i.e., sub-TLV in upcoming specifications). These terms aren't the catchiest ever possible, but the authentication I-D currently reuses these in a workable way. If future specifications also reuse, this should help a reader of any Babel specification to map the sense between different documents.

Since RFC6126 is the only finished specification right now, it's not too late to update the works in progress with a new, better terminology. In particular, in the protocol extension I-D respective terms right now are "base length" and "extension data".

There's no problem in keeping the terminology consistent across the works in progress, the matter is if it should be refined over RFC6126 or left as is. Could you share your opinion if one of the two ways looks notably better than the other and why?

Thank you.

-- 
    Denis Ovsienko