Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9262 <draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-13> for your review

[Lynne Bartholomew <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Alvaro and Toerless.

Toerless, please review Alvaro's notes below, and advise.

Thank you!

RFC Editor/lb

> On Aug 31, 2022, at 7:01 AM, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On August 30, 2022 at 2:35:55 PM, Lynne Bartholomew wrote:
>>> On Aug 26, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> 
> 
> Lynne/Toerless:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 
> I've been thinking about this point:
> 
>>> (64) [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
>>> online Style Guide at ,
>>> and let us know if any changes are needed. Aside from "native", our script
>>> did not identify problematic terms.
>>> 
>>> I could not find on those URLs a place where "native" was listed as
>>> problematic, where/what is the script you are using ?
> 
> I looked at several external references and found some discussions
> mostly about using "native" to refer to specific groups of people, and
> how to correctly do that.  But that doesn't apply here since the text
> is not referring to people.
> 
> 
> There are two places where "native" is used in the draft:
> 
>    If the BIER-TE topology represents (a subset of) the underlying
>    (Layer 2) topology of the network as shown in the first example, this
>    may be called a "native" BIER-TE topology.  A topology consisting
>    only of "forward_routed()" adjacencies as shown in the second example
>    may be called an "overlay" BIER-TE topology.  A BIER-TE topology with
>    both forward_connected() and forward_routed() adjacencies may be
>    called a "hybrid" BIER-TE topology.
> 
>    ...
> 
>    1.  Determine the desired BIER-TE topology for BIER-TE subdomains:
>        the native and/or overlay adjacencies that are assigned to
>        BPs.  Topology discovery is discussed in Section 3.2.1.1, and
>        the various aspects of the BIER-TE controller's determinations
>        regarding the topology are discussed throughout Section 5.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Toerless that there's no common well-known one-word
> replacement for "native".  The computing related term that is often
> suggested is "built-in", but that doesn't fit here.
> 
> 
> OTOH, I wonder if we can come up with an alternative based on the
> context, especially because there are only two occurrences and the
> second one refers to the definition of the first.
> 
> The differentiation between "native", "overlay", and "hybrid"
> topologies is the type of adjacencies: a "native topology" only has
> forward_connected() adjacencies.  I think we can call this type of
> topology a "connected topology" without any loss of meaning while
> reinforcing the adjacency concepts.
> 
> Please consider this replacement.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.
>