Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-03

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 04 January 2016 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B74E1A88FF for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 06:38:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LI1o_O0zdQNo for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 06:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E3501A88E7 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 06:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.105]) by resqmta-ch2-10v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 1qbY1s0022GyhjZ01qeSSh; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:38:26 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([73.218.51.154]) by resomta-ch2-09v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 1qeR1s00F3KdFy101qeRPa; Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:38:26 +0000
To: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes.all@ietf.org>
References: <56818AED.8090909@alum.mit.edu> <d4b8085a5e4c4087adfa44c0e8fbc4b4@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <56843F07.4000606@alum.mit.edu> <fbac0b22d4f247abb6f88f47a0aeaf10@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com> <56898941.8030804@alum.mit.edu> <1b41d2f42ebc48b99ad0812d1ff5db8f@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <568A83E1.4050408@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:38:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1b41d2f42ebc48b99ad0812d1ff5db8f@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1451918306; bh=TxGNS5b7wRBohISw/ZcBITW716fGZuo66pv4G3/PhUU=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=ND9rgkPoRwmqDNLyOiLoYqoISgbiqxc4eOf6TMRiNlnZNr1gt1W74kQ/hApt9oIoM 4qedaa8t6JeljosOQ2KDS+z8haa4DNI8XhJtYZyUaAOhN83cKuFIjmr4MfFK/Pe/vq j3ao9IQag6S4R3wErdGpFzbeScUUQ1wML1Hs6rD+BpTr4Q5fnyf2vp4559eepQx+P0 89i1gaKir+MOUiTPVU6r0jtd3INwXhhhv4+Fx5WQz2m58WpvGk3w/GR9ac+ZtUxFqQ CXaSWXJxXQTweU9Q+e3LYeS1yXVm9fNaGkTUzAX0oJNrW64mwlgQHH0E7dRTX1hlSB Ji4LRtebMtoXg==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/EAj-WzADZZJtnHVnQuKUEP2WLOY>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:38:29 -0000

Les,

This works for me.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 1/3/16 10:53 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Paul -
>
> Attached is a diff file w the changes I have made to address your comments. Please let me know if this suffices.
>
> (co-authors - please let me know if you have any concerns regarding the proposed changes)
>
> Thanx.
>
>     Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu]
>> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2016 12:49 PM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes.all@ietf.org
>> Cc: General Area Review Team
>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-03
>>
>> Hi Les,
>>
>> Trimming to the relevant points:
>>
>> On 1/3/16 9:27 AM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>>
>>>> Note that at the end of the day my comments are just suggestions. You
>>>> can act on them or not. They only become binding if the IESG decides
>>>> to raise them.
>>>
>>> [Les:] I want you to know that I take your comments seriously - binding or
>> not. You obviously invested time in reviewing - which I appreciate.
>>
>> Thanks. Genart is educational for the reviewers (at least for me) because we
>> are usually reviewing things we know nothing about! It often takes some
>> sniffing around to gain enough context to do the review.
>>
>> But I think that is the point of genart - to get a review from somebody who
>> doesn't already know the subject.
>>
>>>> Understood. But the abstract will be seen by many (like me) who don't
>>>> fall into that category. They are left entirely in the dark about what this is
>> about.
>>>> Might it be something they *ought* to be interested in?
>>>> After reading the abstract, the only clue I had about the scope of
>>>> this document was the name of the wg from the draft name. And once
>>>> this becomes an RFC that won't be available as a hint. I had to look
>>>> up isis in the list of WGs to discover that this was in the routing
>>>> area. Then I had to do more searching to figure out what IS-IS was about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [Les:] The title (even once it becomes an RFC) includes "IS-IS".  If you don't
>> know that IS-IS is a routing protocol, do you think that further clarification is
>> needed to help you understand that this isn't something which you are
>> interested in reading?
>>
>> It is sufficient to get people to stop reading and ignore it. Maybe that is
>> enough.
>>
>> But for the person who goes a step further and pulls the full document and
>> still doesn't know, it would be nice to add an informative reference to the
>> intro, to a base document for IS-IS. As best I can tell, the likely one is
>> RFC1195. For example, revise the first sentence of the intro:
>>
>>      There are existing use cases for IS-IS [RFC1195] in which knowing
>>      additional attributes of a network prefix is useful.
>>
>>>>> In regards to the term "prefix", you seem to be expecting the
>>>>> document to
>>>> define that term - but in looking at multiple RFCs I do not see
>>>> precedent for that. It is part of the base knowledge that has been
>>>> assumed that readers understand . Perhaps this is a bad practice -
>>>> but if so there are many documents - not restricted solely to IS-IS
>>>> related documents - that could be critiqued on this basis. I would
>>>> ask that this comment be viewed in a larger context - I don't think
>>>> this particular draft should be asked to deviate from common practice
>> without larger guidance from the IETF community.
>>>>
>>>> Not a definition, just a disambiguation. Simply replacing "prefix"
>>>> with "network prefix" would have met my need.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [Les:] You are proposing that "prefix" be replaced by "network prefix"
>> throughout the document?
>>> This has not been done in any of the existing RFCs that I checked.
>>
>> Not everywhere, just one or a few places - say in the abstract and the intro.
>>
>>>>> In regards to "references to the Introduction", I emphasize that the
>>>> Introduction is neither normative nor exhaustive. It is meant to
>>>> provide some examples of cases where the information contained in the
>>>> new advertisements could be useful. I therefore find that references
>>>> to it would be inappropriate.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I wasn't clear. I was suggesting that reference(s) be added
>>>> to the introduction. (References are not permitted in the abstract,
>>>> but they are allowed in the intro.) A reference to the base
>>>> specification for the internet version of IS-IS would have helped me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> [Les:] I usually constrain references to those which are actually useful in the
>> context of the topics being discussed in the draft. Base specifications are not
>> directly referenced in this draft because we are extending TLVs which were
>> defined in RFCs issued long after the base specifications were published.
>> However, the following could be added to the introduction:
>>>
>>> "IS-IS is a link state routing protocol defined in [ISO10589] and [RFC1195].
>> Extensions in support of advertising new forms of IP/IPv6 prefix reachability
>> are defined in [RFC5305], [RFC5308], and [RFC5120]."
>>>
>>> Is this what you had in mind?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> 	Thanks,
>> 	Paul
>>
>