Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Vijay:

As the document shepherd this same phrase struck me a different way so I let
it go forward.    

"This document is not a panacea, nor is it a deep and
  thorough approach to flap reduction."

My understanding is that some authors (researchers and engineers) were from
Japan.  As careful engineers their concern is to be precise on the work they
have done.  They have addressed immediate concerns and known issues as
documented (2 years of work), but they feel additional work can be done.
Given this is an appropriate caveat for authors from the Japanese culture, I
was comfortable with this in the document.  I believe authors need to be
comfortable with the document along with the WG.  

The authors appear to be more cautions than the WG or RIPE who endorsed the
document. 

We'll see what others say. 

Sue  

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:40 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: General Area Review Team; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Stewart
Bryant
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02

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} / [e-mail]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq