Re: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization

Thanks Haleplidis and Joel,

That makes me a bit more comfortable. Hopefully we can move this forward
promptly.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haleplidis Evangelos [mailto:ehalep@gmail.com]
> Sent: 29 August 2014 23:54
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-forces-packet-
> parallelization.all@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: forces@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization
> 
> Greetings Adrian,
> 
> Thank you for the review and for the suggestion.
> 
> We have discussed with Joel and we agree to go with experimental as that may
> be best for this draft to go for. I think we fall more into the category of
> "we have an implementation and are seeing how it behaves" rather than "we
> are deploying".
> 
> For the rest of your comments, we'll shortly provide a new draft that answer
> your IANA and the shepherd's comments.
> 
> Regards,
> Evangelos Haleplidis.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: forces [mailto:forces-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian
> > Farrel
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:31 AM
> > To: draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization.all@tools.ietf.org
> > Cc: forces@ietf.org
> > Subject: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization
> >
> > Hi authors,
> >
> > I have done my usual AD review on receiving a publication request for
> > your draft.
> >
> > I have a question, a request, and a suggestion.
> >
> > I'll put the document into "Revised I-D" state until we have resolved
> > these issues.
> >
> > Thanks for the work,
> > Adrian
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Is this really standards track and not experimental? The reason I ask
> > is because it sounds (to me) that packet parallelization is quite an
> > advanced feature that may have some "interesting" behavioral
> > characteristics. If you tell me that, "this is stable, we know what we
> > are doing, the implementations that exist are really being deployed"
> > then I'll be happy. If you say "we have an implementation and are
> > seeing how it behaves" then perhaps you should consider whether this is
> > an experiment.
> >
> > This is a topic for discussion. You don't have to make a change until
> > we have covered the ground and understand what we are dealing with.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > The IANA Considerations section needs some work. Please:
> > - Name the registries where you are requesting code points.
> > - Please request allocations (i.e. don't write descriptive text)
> > - the values you are asking for appear to come from the Standards
> >   Action space: why mention FCFS?
> > - Do you *need* the values you are asking for (18-20 and x10), are you
> >   suggesting them, or do you not actually care? You need to make this
> >   clear in your text.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Some comments from the document shepherd are recorded in the write-up
> > and should get some attention from the authors.
> >
> > Additionally, there is some English that could benefit from a quick re-
> > read and some polish.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > forces mailing list
> > forces@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces