Re: [spring] WG Adoption Call for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Loa, 

In most cases, I believe that if the component acronyms are either well-known or expanded, there is no requirement to expand the hyphenated combination acronym. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 10/30/20, 12:32 AM, "spring on behalf of Loa Andersson" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Working Group,

    I support adopting this document.

    However I have one question; if it leads to (very small) changes in the 
    document, this can be done after the adoption.

    I'm looking at

        HMAC-SHA: Consists of two parts
        HMAC: Hashed Message Authentication Code (expanded in the document).
        SHA: Secure Hash Algorithm (not expanded, but on the other hand it an
             well-known abbreviation)

    When we combine two abbreviations what rules apply, is it enough that 
    eachpart is expanded "somewhere" even if the parts are found at 
    different places. Or does the rule "expand at first occurrence apply?

    I guess that in part this depends on whether we view HMAC-SHA as one 
    unit or two separate parts? And how familiar we believe our readers are 
    with the abbreviations.

    I don't have a strong opinion on this, but would suggest that we place
    HMAC-SHA in the "Abbreviations" in section 2.2 and expamnd it fully.

    On 30/10/2020 10:01, Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote:
    > Hi WG,
    > 
    > Support. However, there are some encoding format changes among versions, 
    > hope the encoding format can be stable in the following revision ASAP.
    > 
    > Many thanks for the authors’ contribution!
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > 
    > Cheng
    > 
    > *From:* spring [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *James 
    > Guichard
    > *Sent:* Thursday, October 22, 2020 8:52 PM
    > *To:* [e-mail]
    > *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
    > *Subject:* [spring] WG Adoption Call for 
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11
    > 
    > Dear WG:
    > 
    > This message starts a 3 week WG adoption call for document 
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11 ending 
    > November 12^th 2020. Please note that this document has several changes 
    > from v-10 that were requested by the SPRING and IPPM chairs. For this 
    > reason, the chairs have extended the adoption call for an additional 
    > week to allow the WG enough time to review these changes before deciding 
    > on WG adoption.
    > 
    > Some background:
    > 
    > Several review comments were received previously for document 
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10. The 
    > SPRING and IPPM chairs considered those comments, and upon review of 
    > this version of the document, determined the following:
    > 
    >   * The SPRING document should describe only the procedures relevant to
    >     SPRING with pointers to non-SPRING document/s that define any
    >     extensions. Several extensions including*Control Code Field
    >     Extension for TWAMP Light Messages*, *Loss Measurement Query Message
    >     Extensions*, and *Loss Measurement Response Message Extensions *were
    >     included in
    >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 and
    >     should be removed from the SPRING document.
    >   * The TWAMP extensions included in
    >     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 should
    >     be described in a new document published in the IPPM WG. 
    > 
    > These conclusions were discussed with the authors of 
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-10 the result 
    > of which is the publication of the following two documents:
    > 
    >   * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-spring-twamp-srpm-11. The
    >     subject of this WG adoption call.
    >   * https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhi-ippm-twamp-srpm-00. This
    >     document will be progressed (if determined by the WG) within the
    >     IPPM WG.
    > 
    > After review of the SPRING document please indicate support (or not) for 
    > WG adoption to the mailing list. Please also provide comments/reasons 
    > for that support (or lack thereof) as silence will not be considered as 
    > consent.
    > 
    > Finally, the chairs would like to thank the authors for their efforts in 
    > this matter.
    > 
    > Thanks!
    > 
    > Jim, Bruno, & Joel
    > 
    > //
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > spring mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
    > 

    -- 

    Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
    Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
    Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]

    _______________________________________________
    spring mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring