Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-18

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
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 ([e-mail]
> (mailto:[e-mail])) 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
> ...
>