Re: [Gen-art] OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12

[Kevin Ma J <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jouni,

  Just wanted to let you know that the ADs also felt the draft needed to be Standards Track, so the we have updated the draft.

thanx!

--  Kevin J. Ma

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jouni [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:48 PM
> To: Kevin Ma J
> Cc: [e-mail] ([e-mail]); draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-
> semantics-12
> 
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> Ok. That’s fine then (probably the mailstones needs to be updated to
> reflect that decision). I just noticed I sent the review to ops-dir
> instead of gen-art.. ;-) Now replying to the right list.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
> > On 26 Mar 2016, at 19:37, Kevin Ma J <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jouni,
> >
> >  Thank you for the review.  I agree with all your comments and will
> address them in the next version, once submissions reopen.
> >
> >  With respect to your question:
> >
> >> o Why this to-be-RFC is under Informational and not Standard Track? The
> >> charter says: "Dec 2016 - Submit specification of the CDNI Footprint &
> >> Capabilities Advertisement interface to IESG as Proposed Standard"
> >
> >  This draft does not specify the actual protocol, only the semantics and
> requirements for the protocol.  There are two additional drafts to follow,
> with the actual protocol specification.  Based on discussion with our AD,
> it was decided that this draft should stay Informational.
> >
> > thanx!
> >
> > --  Kevin J. Ma
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jouni [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:27 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]; draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Cc: Jouni
> >> Subject: OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-
> >> semantics-12
> >>
> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft (draft-ietf-cdni-
> >> footprint-capabilities-semantics-12). The General Area Review Team
> (Gen-
> >> ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the
> IETF
> >> Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
> before
> >> posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see
> the
> >> FAQ at <​http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >>
> >> This draft is ready for publication as a Informational RFC with some
> tiny
> >> nits. As I am no expert on CDNI my comments are not much on the
> substance
> >> of the technical side of this draft. I did not spot any
> inconsistencies,
> >> though.
> >>
> >> IDnits:
> >> o The comments that IDnits give will be automatically fixed when a new
> >> revision of this document is provided.
> >>
> >> Other comments:
> >> o term ‘dCDN’ is never introduced properly like it was done in a case
> of
> >> ‘uCDN’.
> >> o Line 139 mentions “.., the RFC says..” without giving the RFC number.
> >> This paragraph is under the context of RFC6707 but I would still say in
> >> explicitly.
> >> o Lines 271-272 and 522-523 refer to CDNI charter for reasons why
> >> something is not done. I would not recommend referencing against the
> >> existing charter as the charter is bound to change and then such
> >> references either lose their importance or make it hard to track the
> >> specific charter the text that was in effect that time.
> >> o RTMP is never expanded or referenced.
> >> o Why this to-be-RFC is under Informational and not Standard Track? The
> >> charter says: "Dec 2016 - Submit specification of the CDNI Footprint &
> >> Capabilities Advertisement interface to IESG as Proposed Standard"
> >>
> >> - Jouni