Hi Barry, Sounds good. I expanded those terms in the introduction. I also changed the abstract as you suggested.
Thank you very much! Jorge From: Barry Leiba <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 at 8:21 PM To: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-na-flags-05: (with COMMENT) Thanks for the reply, Jorge. Just a quick reply to that: >> A number of abbreviations need to be expanded on first use, including EVPN, >> PE, >> ND, IRB, and CE. > > [Jorge] I added those to the terminology section. Thanks. Ah, but the point was to make sure they're expanded in the Introduction, which comes before the terminology section. We normally prefer to have abbreviations expanded the first time they're used, even if they're defined properly later in the document. But use your best judgment, and the RFC Editor will also weigh in when it's their turn. > — Abstract — > The Abstract is exactly, word for word, the same as the first two paragraphs > of > the Introduction, except that the Introduction helpfully splits it into two > paragraphs. I have comments about the text below, but for the Abstract I > suggest shortening it by removing the explanatory stuff and just leaving the > summay of what this document is doing — just the final sentence looks fine, I > think. > > [Jorge] I shortened and simplified it. We could leave just the last sentence, > but then I miss some > context. This is the current text, let me know if you still think we should > just leave the last sentence: I do think so, because I think the rest of the context is very important for the Introduction, but not needed at all for the Abstract. The purpose of the Abstract is to have a brief description of what the document does, so that someone reading only the title and Abstract can know whether she should go look at the full document. It seems to me that this: This document defines an Extended Community that is advertised along with an EVPN MAC/IP Advertisement route and carries information relevant to the ARP/ND resolution, so that an EVPN PE implementing a proxy-ARP/ND function can reply to ARP Requests or Neighbor Solicitations with the correct information. ...is all that's needed for that purpose. When the reader goes to the full document, the introduction will explain the rest. But, again, this is a non-blocking comment, and you should absolutely use *your* best judgment on this. I'll say no more about it, and I'm OK with however you decide. Thanks for considering this comment, as well as the rest... for which your resolutions are good. Barry
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
