Re: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 05 January 2015 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA061A8A74 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:22:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kc3sycTSR775 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6481A8A51 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 13:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id EEAF4C94A9; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:21:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:21:50 -0500
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: "Simpson, Adam (Adam)" <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
Message-ID: <20150105212150.GA12406@verdi>
References: <015201d0146d$860c7ae0$922570a0$@ndzh.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846961D9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <D0D0438A.58CB3%adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D0D0438A.58CB3%adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/l3Enul1PIs4sCdc-cQSY2t0pZXk
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 21:22:09 -0000

Simpson, Adam (Adam) <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>; wrote:
> 
> This draft was originally intended to be informational but the desire
> to standardize at least one common path selection algorithm across all
> implementations caused us to reconsider whether this should really be
> standards track. I think we would still welcome input on this point.

   Since you ask...

   I think the draft would be very useful as Informational; but it feels
a bit shy of the mark for Standards Track.

   I really can't find an explanation of why the four choices were chosen
for MANDATORY and OPTIONAL. I also doubt that "advertise-N" choice must
be limited to N==2.

   IMHO, this draft is not ready to publish as Proposed-Standard; and I
don't see an imminent justification for the additional work to make it
ready to publish on the Standards track.

   Obviously, YMMV...

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>;