Subject: [IPTEL] CPL-03 Terminology

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:01:50 -0600

I realize this may be asking too much too late (and besides, I'm pretty sure
_I've_ got it all figured out), but I wonder if some of the terminology in
draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-03 could be clarified.

The most confusing term for me was "output". This has two different
meanings: (1) it can mean a tag that is not considered a node; i.e., a
condition within a switch or the result of an action; or (2) it can mean the
next node to be processed. I think the first meaning is the normal one;
however, section 2.2 seems to be using the second meaning (maybe the term
"next node" could be used instead), and the introduction to section 5 seems
to use both meanings. The syntax figures (Figure 4, for example) are also
confusing in this regard: no outputs (second sense) are listed for an output
(first sense), but outputs (second sense) are given for _nodes_ that have no
outputs (first sense). I think this could be cleaned up by listing outputs
only for nodes that really have outputs in the first sense (switches,
proxy). For nodes with no outputs, and for outputs too, a "next node" could
be listed (either "any node" or "none allowed").

The second most confusing term was "action". This can mean (1) "top-level
action" (or "call processing action"[?]) or (2) a node that performs an
action (including "location"[?], but excluding switches). I'd suggest
reserving the word "action" for the second meaning. For the first meaning,
use the complete term (or to clarify further, perhaps replace "top-level
action" with "top-level action tree" or "top-level procedure" and replace
"call processing action" with "action tree" or "procedure").

I think "condition" is also used in two ways: (1) "switch", in section 2.2,
and (2)switch outputs ("address is" or "address contains"), in section 5.
This word is used much less, so it is less confusing but also easier to fix.

I'd also suggest eliminating unnecessary synonyms:
- call processing action / processing action 
- top-level action / top-level processing action / action
- ancillary information / meta-information
- non-signalling actions / other actions

Thanks,

Cliff Harris

_______________________________________________
IPTEL mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/iptel

---

From: Jonathan Lennox <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 14:53:49 -0500 (EST)

> draft-ietf-iptel-cpl-03 could be clarified.

I don't have any problem with textual clarifications at this point; that's
what last call is for.

> be listed (either "any node" or "none allowed").

This was pretty easy to fix.  I had been thinking of an "output" on a higher
level -- as a description of "how you decide what happens next" -- but on
reflection I agree this is unclear.  I standardized on your usage: an
"output" is a tag which is not a node; the next node is just that, the "next
node."  In those few cases where I needed the abstract concept, I used the
term "result".  (E.g. the <mail> tag can have only one result, so it has no
outputs, but instead directly contains the next node.)

> "call processing action" with "action tree" or "procedure").

This one is more of a problem.  While I like the term "procedure" for the
current "top-level actions" and "subactions", the tag <subaction> is already
defined.  It seems like it'd be awfully confusing to change the terminology
in the way you describe, but still call the node <subaction>.  Any thoughts
on the best way to resolve this?

> This word is used much less, so it is less confusing but also easier to fix.

Yes; fixed.

> - top-level action / top-level processing action / action

These two are part of the "action" mess.

> - non-signalling actions / other actions

These two were easy to fix.

Thanks for your comments!

-- 
Jonathan Lennox
[email-masked]