[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02
"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Fri, 06 September 2013 20:35 UTC
Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79FA711E80F9 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.341
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.258, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cJW67qCXbHKI for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C4211E80F3 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.11]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r86KZbFY005279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 6 Sep 2013 15:35:37 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.61]) by usnavsmail3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id r86KZaUO030098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 6 Sep 2013 15:35:36 -0500
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.237.229]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id r86KZarr017224; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 15:35:36 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <522A3DBC.6090106@bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:40:28 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130805 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.11
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, shares@ndzh.com, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 20:35:45 -0000
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-idr-rfd-usable-02 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: Sep-6-2013 IETF LC End Date: Unknown IESG Telechat date: Unknown This draft is basically ready for publication, but has one minor issue that should be fixed (or at least looked at) before publication. Major: 0 Minor: 1 Nits: 0 Minor issue: - This is a document on the standards track. Therefore, it is rather disconcerting to see the following statement in the draft (end of Section 2): "[This document] is not a panacea, nor is it a deep and thorough approach to flap reduction." I understand the panacea part, it is the trailing phrase that I want to draw attention to. Now, I am not a routing expert so I would presume that despite the exhortations above, the chairs of the WG and the AD have looked at the document and are comfortable with the sentence I have pointed out. (Sorry if it has been discussed in the WG.) Assuming that is the case, I am happy to proceed with this document. Assuming it is not, would an Experimental designation be appropriate? Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-us… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rf… Susan Hares
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rf… Randy Bush
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rf… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rf… Randy Bush
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rf… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rf… Randy Bush
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rf… Vijay K. Gurbani
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rf… Randy Bush
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rf… Vijay K. Gurbani