In message <E736F946-88D0-4262-B2DD-C62FC461A885@xxxxxxxxx>
Jari Arkko writes:
>
> Many thanks for your (once again) detailed review, Peter! And thank
> you Curtis for making the fixes. One comment below:
>
> >> Make all references to the expansion of ECMP read "Equal-Cost Multipath" for
> >> consistency with RFC 2991.
> >
> > ECMP is expanded on first use in compliance with RFC Editor quidelines
> > for abbreviations. ECMP is also expanded on first use within each
> > section where it is used with the exception of one place where ECMP is
> > contained in a verbatim excerpt in a quote from RFC6374.
>
> I thought Peter was referring to the fact that your draft has some variation on the way the term is expanded, even outside verbatim examples:
>
> > % grep -i 'equal' draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt
> > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:94: than parallel links includes Equal Cost MultiPath (ECMP) as applied
> > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:148: Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP)
> > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:149: Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) is a specific form of multipath in
> > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:229: Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load-balancing MUST NOT be performed
> > draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03.txt:288: following paragraph in "Section 2.9.4 Equal Cost Multipath" gives the
> >
> > % grep -i "equal" rfc2991.txt
> > rfc2991.txt: allow "Equal-Cost Multipath" (ECMP) routing. Some router
> >
>
> I think you could align other instances than those relating to
> verbatim text from RFC 5960 or 6374.
>
> Anyway, minor things. I have balloted no-objection for this draft for
> the Thursday's IESG telechat. Thanks for your hard work, all.
>
> Jari
Jari,
Thanks for the no-objection.
There doesn't seem to be much consistency on ECMP expansion.
Checking abstracts in rfc-index:
RFC2992 (same authors as RFC2991) uses:
Equal-Cost Multi-Path - in the title
Equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) - in the abstract
RFC4928 uses:
Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP)
RFC5640 uses:
equal cost multiple paths (ECMPs)
RFC6391 uses:
Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs)
RFC6754 in the title uses:
Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP)
You'll get a few more combinations of hyphenation and capitalization
if you try:
grep -i 'equal[- ]cost' rfc????.txt | grep ECMP
The total count for space vs hyphen (up to rfc7052) are:
grep -i 'equal cost multi' rfc????.txt | grep ECMP | wc -l
47
grep -i 'equal-cost multi' rfc????.txt | grep ECMP | wc -l
26
grep -i 'equal cost multi' rfc????.txt | grep ECMP \
| sed 's/:.*//' | uniq | wc -l
34
grep -i 'equal-cost multi' rfc????.txt | grep ECMP \
| sed 's/:.*//' | uniq | wc -l
18
The hyphen form is used less often recently (May 2008 - Oct 2013).
grep -i 'equal cost multi' rfc[567]???.txt | grep ECMP \
| sed 's/:.*//' | uniq | wc -l
27
grep -i 'equal-cost multi' rfc[567]???.txt | grep ECMP \
| sed 's/:.*//' | uniq | wc -l
10
grep -i 'equal cost multi' rfc[67]???.txt | grep ECMP \
| sed 's/:.*//' | uniq | wc -l
15
grep -i 'equal-cost multi' rfc[67]???.txt | grep ECMP \
| sed 's/:.*//' | uniq | wc -l
8
I prefer the RFC4928 flavor of this acronym and the above greps show
that it is more widely used in the RFC series.
Curtis