Re: [icnrg] IRTF Chair review of draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-05

[Spyridon Mastorakis <[e-mail]>]

Let’s do that after we get the formal IRSG reviews back.

Thank you,
Spyros 

> On May 4, 2022, at 5:48 AM, David R. Oran <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Non-NU Email
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________
> iDevice - please excuse typos.
> 
>> On May 4, 2022, at 3:16 AM, Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Spyros,
>> 
>> What do you think of additionally adding some short sentence to explain the different scenario or goal from CCNinfo in the introduction?
>> ICNRG has already agreed that both drafts are useful, but it is worth to mention, for example, ICN traceroute is a lightweight operational tool to discover paths, while CCNinfo exposes detailed information about in-network cache.
>> 
> Good idea to cross-reference as Hitoshi suggests. We can either do this now or note to do it after we get the formal IRSG reviews back.
> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Hitoshi
>> 
>> 
>>>> On May 3, 2022, at 23:34, Spyridon Mastorakis <smastorakis=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Colin,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your feedback. Regarding IPR disclosures, we do not have anything to disclose. About your comments, please see our changes below:
>>> 
>>> 1/ We have added the following sentences:
>>> 
>>> (In the abstract) "This document is a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG).”
>>> (In the introduction) "This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation.
>>> This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research and development activities. These results might not be suitable for deployment. This RFC represents the consensus of the Information-Centric Networking Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841."
>>> 
>>> 2/ We have added an "IANA Considerations” Section.
>>> 
>>> 3/ We have added the following paragraph in the introduction: 
>>> 
>>> "In order to carry out meaningful experimentation and deployment of ICN protocols, tools to manage and debug the operation of ICN architectures and protocols are needed analogous to ping and traceroute used for TCP/IP.  This document describes the design of a management and debugging protocol analogous to the traceroute protocol of TCP/IP, which will aid the experimental deployment of ICN protocols.  As the community continues its experimentation with ICN architectures and protocols, the design of ICN Traceroute might change accordingly.  ICN Traceroute is designed as a tool to troubleshoot ICN architectures and protocols.  As such, this document is classified as an experimental RFC."
>>> 
>>> We have also uploaded draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-06, which includes these changes.
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if anything else is needed.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Spyros
>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 22, 2022, at 10:57 AM, Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Non-NU Email
>>>> 
>>>> The ICNRG chairs have requested that draft-irtf-icnrg-icntraceroute-05 be published as an RFC on the IRTF stream. The IRTF publication process is described in RFC 5743, and comprises a review by the IRSG to ensure technical and editorial quality, followed by a check by the IESG to ensure the work does not conflict with IETF standards activities.
>>>> 
>>>> As IRTF Chair, I perform an initial review of all drafts submitted for publication on the IRTF stream before sending them for detailed review by the IRSG. This note provides my review comments, for discussion.
>>>> 
>>>> Authors, please can you also respond to this message to confirm that any needed IPR disclosures, as described on https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://irtf.org/policies/ipr__;!!PvXuogZ4sRB2p-tU!XaC3veMiWAQoouCSqq5K1P_Sgo_QsJfe3tOocJlufHaAeGEcqoNW6oahQ-eliCsZK6Qp$ , have been made? 
>>>> 
>>>> Result: 
>>>> * Ready with nits
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> RFC 5743 compliance: 
>>>> * The draft does not follow the guidelines in RFC 5743
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Comments:
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for preparing this draft. The work looks to be in good shape, but I have a number of minor procedural issues to consider.
>>>> 
>>>> 1. The draft does not appear to follow the guidelines in RFC 5743 Section 2.1. Please review and add the required statements to the Abstract and Introduction.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. There are various message types that need to be registered, but the draft doesn’t contain an IANA Considerations section giving these registrations. Is this needed, or have the registrations been made elsewhere?
>>>> 
>>>> 3. The draft is targeting publication as an experimental RFC, but doesn’t include discussion to explain why it’s experimental. Does it need a couple of sentences in the Introduction to highlight that this is a management and debugging tool for the experimental deployments of ICN protocols, or similar?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Colin Perkins
>>>> IRTF Chair
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Colin Perkins
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://csperkins.org/__;!!PvXuogZ4sRB2p-tU!XaC3veMiWAQoouCSqq5K1P_Sgo_QsJfe3tOocJlufHaAeGEcqoNW6oahQ-eliATbNWLz$ 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> icnrg mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg__;!!PvXuogZ4sRB2p-tU!Dm3wArGBcNBROApn-fKjtp2SYKwUrLJgJDc4zFQOetqRz1RoQQaDKyDPJ5OkpzhLSkO3s9EjUwowitQlrMj65Ls$ 
>> 
>