Re: [RTG-DIR] [RTG-DIR} RtgDir last call review: draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-07.txt

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> The first use of LCAF (Section 2) should be expanded.
> 
> I find the acronym "RTR" a bit unfortunate for the obvious reason that it intuitively represents "just a router". I wonder if the authors could

Les, I understand your concern here. However, RTR is littered throughout many LISP documents as well as in product documentation and implementations. We have clearly defined it in the base documents and for any new use-case of an RTR, it is explained in the use-case documents.

I really think it is too late. The term will continue to be used even if IETF changes the documents. And adding a new term could add confusion (you’d have to clarify everywhere that an RTR and a ReTR is the same thing).

> consider something like "ReTR". I am sensitive to the fact that this document has been around since 2014 and has undergone significant WG review. I have

RTR was introduced in a general way in RFC6830 which dates even further back in time. And the component has added NAT functionality, TE functionality, and in this document multicast functionality.

> not attempted to track all of the email history regarding this document. Perhaps this point has been considered and consensus has been that the
> RTR acronym is the best choice. If so, feel free to disregard my suggestion, but as someone who read this document for the first time I found myself 
> looking back for the definition of "RTR" multiple times as I read through the text.

Do you believe the definition is sufficient? This is what’s in the current document:

  Re-encapsulating Tunnel Router (RTR): An RTR is a router that
   implements the re-encapsulating tunnel function detailed in Section 8
   of the main LISP specification [RFC6830].  A LISP RTR performs packet
   re-routing by chaining ETR and ITR functions, whereby it first
   removes the LISP header of an ingress packet and then prepends a new
   LISP header to an egress packet.

Dino