Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

I think the draft can talk to the motivation in general terms with the
embedded routing draft cited as an example.
Thanks,
Acee

On 3/6/13 7:01 AM, "Stewart Bryant" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Chairs
>
>Please can you re on the question posed by Alvaro below.
>
>Do you have any objection to adding motivation text to the draft?
>
>Certainly I think it would be useful in IESG review.
>
>Stewart
>
>On 11/02/2013 21:15, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
>> On 1/16/13 5:17 PM, "Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Ben:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Sorry for the delay, my filters put this in a different place..  I'm
>> explicitly adding the OSPF chairs.  Comments below.
>>
>>
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>>
>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>
>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>> you may receive.
>>>
>>> Document:  draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-iid-registry-update-00
>>> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
>>> Review Date: 2013-01-16
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-24
>>>
>>> Summary: This draft is not ready for publication as a proposed
>>>standard.
>>> There is a significant IANA registration issue described in the review
>>> body.
>>>
>>> Major issues:
>>>
>>> This draft carves out a significant part of a registry with an
>>>assignment
>>> policy of "standards action" for "private use". It offers very little
>>> motivation for the change. In my opinion, this sort of change should
>>>come
>>> with a clear justification.
>>>
>>> Specifically, the draft modifies the OSPFv3 Address Family Instance ID
>>> registry to carve out half of the unassigned space for "private use".
>>>The
>>> justification for this is a single sentence saying that some networks
>>> need to use IIDs to identify specific applications. I think that needs
>>> significant elaboration in order to motivate the change in a way that
>>>the
>>> reader can evaluate.
>>>
>>> My understanding from the OFPS list is that this is in support of
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, which is an informational
>>> draft. I have to wonder why the draft under review was not simply the
>>> IANA considerations for that draft.
>>>
>>> I suggest one of two paths forward:
>>>
>>> 1) If this change is in support of that draft in particular, then this
>>> draft should say that, and include a _normative_ reference. I recognize
>>> the normative downref would complicate things--but I think that
>>> complication is reasonable under the circumstances.
>>>
>>> 2) If this change is to support a general need that goes beyond
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing, then this draft should
>>> describe that need in enough detail for people to think about it,
>>>perhaps
>>> with an informative reference to
>>> draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as an _example_.
>> In short (from the shepherd write-up): "The new range is for
>>applications
>> that do not justify a standards track OSPFv3 Instance ID allocation. An
>> example would be "Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets"".
>>
>> During pre-publication review, the WG chairs asked us to not include
>> explicit references to draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing as
>>that
>> is just an example and not the only potential user/driver.  I don't
>>have a
>> problem adding an example, but I want to get agreement/comments/guidance
>> from the chairs before adding the text.  Acee/Abhay??
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Minor issues:
>>>
>>> -- section 3:
>>>
>>> I don't think it's appropriate to use normative language for IANA
>>> requests. Especially not "MUST". (I think the strongest thing we can do
>>> here is a polite request :-)  )   I suggest recasting that to
>>>descriptive
>>> language, and removing section 2 and the RFC 2119 reference.
>> Yes, we already removed that in the -01 version.
>>
>> Thanks!!
>>
>> Alvaro.
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
>-- 
>For corporate legal information go to:
>
>http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
>