Alvaro and Yingzhen,
First of all, it has to be understood that this draft is about FIB and
the forwarding plane, NOT about BGP or routing. Just because it has the
title "BGP-PIC", does NOT mean that that every term in the draft must
be BGP-related. If BGP-PIC is not (almost) an industry standard, I would
have changed the title.
Second, the terms that I am using are well defined in the draft, are
different from the terms used in RFC4271, and are used differently in a
different functional unit on a routing system (which is FIB and the
forwarding plane). Why in your opinion I have to use terms that are
BGP-related even though I am defining different terms that are used
differently in a different functional unit on a router?
Third, I frankly do not understand the term "consistent". I would be
very happy if you can provide an example of how I can modify some terms
in this draft to become "consistent"" with RFC4271 in your opinion?
Ahmed
On 10/25/23 2:27 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
Thank you for the review. I agree with you that the terminology should
stay consistent with RFC4271. The reference format should be changed
as well.
Authors,
Would you please continue to address the comments? This draft will
need another round of routing directorate review before the 2nd WGLC.
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 12:23 PM Alvaro Retana
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi!
[I am not the AD, but the chairs asked me to look at the changes -- so
I'm replying to this thread.]
My main concern with this document continues to be the terminology
(see quoted text below). I am not satisfied with the changes -- the
terminology is still not consistent with rfc4271 or other BGP-related
IETF documents, regardless of what specific implementations may use.
Adding "pic-" to the terms results, in my opinion, in more conflicts
than before.
The authors' opinion is not aligned with mine, which results in
disconnects about the description of the processes and the content in
general. To quote Ahmed:
#Ahmed: that is probably the main reason of lots of disconnects.
The document defines terms and uses these terms according to the
definition in the document, not in other documents (even if these
other documents are RFCs). I already prefixed the confusing terms
in the document with something like "PIC-"
As a WG participant, I don't think this document is ready to move
forward, but it is not up to me to decide which approach should be
followed. I'll leave that up to the Chairs and the rest of the WG.
Just one substantive comment: the references were not updated to the
required format. The RFC Editor requires that the OID be listed for
all references [1]. Please update the references -- here's an example
of what they should look like [2]:
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border
Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI
10.17487/RFC4271,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/
[2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/ref4271.txt
Alvaro.
On April 1, 2023 at 7:58:02 PM, Ahmed Bashandy wrote:
...
> > On August 2, 2022 at 4:23:53 PM, Alvaro Retana
([email protected] (mailto:[email protected])) wrote:
...
> > > After reading the document, I think that it still needs work:
> > >
> > > (1) The terminology used is not aligned with rfc4271. Of
major importance
> > > is the description of the Routing Table, the Decision
Process, the use of
> > > best routes (not paths!), etc. I pointed out multiple
occurrences below,
> > > buy I need you to check the whole document for consistency.
>
> #Ahmed: The terms that I use in this documents are defined in
the terminology
> section and are widely used in many implementations. However to
avoid
> confusion, whenever applicable I prepended these terms with
"PIC-" to make
> them distinct from similar terms in drafts or RFCs
...
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
