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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

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
...