Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-multipath-use-03

In message <E736F946-88D0-4262-B2DD-C62FC461A885(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>
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