Moin, > I support addoption of these drafts. Thanks! > For draft-fiebig-grow-routing-ops-terms I do wonder if the document > should provide definitions, detailed explanations, pointers to RFCs > that already define terms, or all three. Currently it is a mix. > > For example: > - DFZ is defined but not explained > - ASN is defined and explained without a reference > - BFD is not in the list of acronyms, but explained in detail with > references
Hrm; The goal of the document is not to be prescriptive but descriptive. So, in general, I would tend to a mix of the three as appropriate (especially for terms with ambiguous or changing meaning). > Acronyms found in draft-fiebig-grow-routing-ops-sec-inform-01 that > are not defined in draft-fiebig-grow-routing-ops-terms-03, section 3: > > ISP, BGP, MSS, GTSM, SIDR, ASPA, RS, MED, GSHUT > > > Some comments and edits for draft-fiebig-grow-routing-ops-sec-inform- > 01: Thanks! Will integrate these for the next version after submissions are open again. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tob...@fiebig.nl Pronouns: he/him/his _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- grow@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to grow-le...@ietf.org
