Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-arkko-iesg-crossarea-03.txt

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

Thanks again for your review.

> Major Issues:
> -------------
>
> > Area Shopping
>
> I'm not entirely happy with this discussion. From the point of view of the
> person trying to introducing a new topic that does indeed cross areas, it is
> *inevitable* to commit the sin of area shopping. <shout>This is not a fault of
> the shopper; it's the fault of the IETF for having areas in the first place.</shout>
>
> I agree that it's the IESG's, and also the IAB's, job to resolve this when
> it arises. But the current text makes it sound as if the protagonist is to
> blame for bringing a cross-area problem to the IETF.

I already replied on a separate thread about this. Agreed.

>
> There also seems to be a missing topic, here and in the recommendations:
> the importance of the BOF (and bar BOF) process, and topic review by the
> IAB, in identifying cross-area topics and chartering them carefully. The
> worst thing that can happen is to BOF and charter a topic within one area,
> but discover later that it is in fact a cross-area topic. There are
> relevant RFCs: 5434, 6771.

A good point. Thanks.

>
> Minor Issues:
> -------------
>
> > 2.  Examples of Cross-Area Work
> >
> >   Many IETF efforts cross area boundaries.  Some recent examples of
> >   such work include:
> >
> >   o  The development of a routing-protocol based bridging model.  This
> >      work has been going on in the TRILL WG on the Internet Area and in
> >      parallel in the ISIS WG on the Routing Area.
>
> A very important aspect of this example is that it *also* overlaps with IEEE work.
> That scenario should surely be mentioned, at least by a cross-reference to the
> various RFCs on liaisons: 4052, 4053, 4691.

Yes.

>
> >   o  The RENUM WG on the Operations and Management Area is addressing
> >      renumbering issues, but will have to work with other areas if
> >      changes or extensions to specific protocols are required.
>
> The WG name is 6RENUM. In fact its charter is explicit that protocol work
> will *not* be done in the WG. (The same is true of V6OPS.)

Right. Will fix.

>
> > 3.  Rationale for Cross-Area Work
> ...
> >   The
> >   actual solution work is then taken up by the relevant technical
> >   community that works on the protocol that needs to be extended.
>
> It would be useful to refer to the RFCs about extensions: 4775, 6709.

OK

>
> Nits
> ----
>
> There are numerous errors in the choice of prepositions, e.g. "The LWIG WG on the
> Internet Area", that need to be fixed during editing.

OK

Jari