Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Abstain on draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: (with COMMENT)

Benoit: 

See my comments to Alvaro.  Figure 1 - is scope of where interface fits into
an existing routing system as management interface. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 5:07 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; bill.wu@huawei.com;
draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement@ietf.org; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Abstain on
draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: Abstain

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I basically agree with Alvaro's points. On top of that, a problem statement
in 2016 when the charter was done in 2012 ... hmm ... 
If (parts of) the content needs be published, it should be in the arch
document. Figure 1 is architecture anyway, right?
And ... a problem statement with a normative reference to an architecture.
Really?

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs