Re: [alto] IESG evaluation results

["Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks a lot for this feedback. The authors of unified-props are preparing responses with a focus on the DISCUSSES. The intent is to address the DISCUSSES in separate dedicated e-mails and come back with later e-mails on the comments.

Sabine

From: alto <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Martin Duke
Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 7:22 PM
To: IETF ALTO <[e-mail]>
Subject: [alto] IESG evaluation results

The IESG ballot did not go particularly well.

Not enough ADs read the drafts to advance any of the documents, which is unfortunate and reflects poorly on the IESG. However, there are numerous useful and straightforward reviews, DISCUSS and otherwise, that we can immediately address.

To the extent that author resources are limited, I suggest you focus on resolving issues on unified-props, as this is the prerequisite for others and the changes are straightforward. I will nag the ADs to move forward with reviews and clearing DISCUSSES, starting with this draft.

There are two DISCUSSes that are worthy of some, well, discussion:

1) I believe that Roman's suggestion that path-vector move to Experimental is valid, as to my knowledge there is not a lot of experience with obscuring network details. I see no normative references to this draft, so this would not create problems down the road.

2) We will have to do something about performance-metrics. In the telechat, we agreed that metrics collection is out of scope. However, more precise definitions of these metrics are in scope. I would suggest finding RFCs in the ippm WG stream that contain useful definitions and using those.

Martin