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

[Ahmed Bashandy <[e-mail]>]

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 
> <[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
>     ...
>