I am good to go with John's suggestion. (I re-checked the relevant paragraphs with this change-to-be, and they would all read fine.)
Sriram -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 4:42 PM To: John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> Cc: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov>; Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net>; Karen Moore <kmo...@staff.rfc-editor.org>; Jeffrey Haas <jh...@juniper.net>; Hannachi, Lilia (Assoc) <lilia.hanna...@nist.gov>; rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; idr-...@ietf.org; idr-cha...@ietf.org; Sue Hares <sha...@ndzh.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9774 <draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-18> for your review > 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
