> On May 6, 2025, at 4:29 PM, John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> About the use of “traditional”, I looked at the current version, and I have a 
> suggestion. After reading the text with any of the suggested adjectives, none 
> of them fills me with happiness. I think that’s because “brief” is not a 
> defined term of art in the BGP document set, so the idea that we can qualify 
> it with some adjective and have that speak unambiguously to the reader is a 
> bit of a reach. That is, IMO, “traditional” is neither necessary nor 
> sufficient for maximum clarity.
> 
> My proposal is to fix the problem by being clearer about our terminology in 
> Section 5, as in,
> 
> OLD:
>    it is typically referred to as "brief" aggregation in
>    implementations.  Brief aggregation results in an AS_PATH that has
> 
> NEW:
>    it is typically referred to as "brief" aggregation in
>    implementations.  That terminology is adopted here: in this document,
>    brief aggregation refers to what is described in this section, in contrast
>    to consistent brief aggregation as described in Section 5.2.
>    Brief aggregation results in an AS_PATH that has
> 
> And then you can remove “traditional” throughout, without loss of precision. 
> You will already have stated explicitly what “brief” means, and have warned 
> the reader that “consistent” is the adjective whose presence or absence 
> distinguishes the two variants. 

I could be fine with this.  Let's see what the other authors think.

> If you had a terminology section, that would be the natural place to do this, 
> but you don’t, and I don’t think we should introduce one at this late date.

Agreed.

-- Jeff

-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org

Reply via email to