On Tue, May 06, 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. > > (Another alternative would be wherever you use “traditional brief”, > replace it with something like “brief (as described in Section 5)”, but > that ends up being more ponderous.) > > 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. > > Thoughts? > Any of these works for me / I really don't care. The meaning of any of these is clear, and this certainly is not a hill that I'm willing to die on… W > —John > > On May 5, 2025, at 11:41 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi. > sri...@nist.gov> wrote: > > > Hi Karen, > > Thank you for the help from you and all the RFC Editors. > > I agree with Jeff’s comments. > > About use of the word “traditional”, I lean in the direction of what > Warren has recommended: “I think that "traditional" is the better word > here,…” > > About the following : > > 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We updated the reference entry for [Analysis] to > match the guidance for referencing web-based public code repositories > in the Web Portion of the RFC Style Guide > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#ref_repo > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/*ref_repo__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!EXC-r34DpOvOcOKKO2PaAZTS-HxxR9WVtnKA_8NbvSwfJnfwwLrypvbIpb8zDBYfdnX_6RCONdyT3CEMApxoNgO9e-E$> > ) > > ….. > > Current: > [Analysis] "Detailed analysis of AS_SETs in BGP updates", commit > eb0fc22, March 2022, > <https://github.com/ksriram25/IETF/blob/main/Detailed- > AS_SET-analysis.txt>. > --> > > No problem. The change you have made is acceptable. I have added the > authors names and contact info at the top of the file in GitHub. Please > update the commit to ef3f4a9 in the citation. > > I have looked at the whole updated document, and assuming the above change > (commit #) would incorporated, I approve this RFC for publication. > > Sriram > >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
