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

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 08 January 2015 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
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 53EEC1A6EE8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 19:10:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.055
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.055 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
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 KK17Kiywad4Z for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 19:10:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web3.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87AF1A1C05 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 19:10:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=64.112.195.202;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'John Leslie'" <john@jlc.net>, "'Simpson, Adam \(Adam\)'" <adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <015201d0146d$860c7ae0$922570a0$@ndzh.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846961D9@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <D0D0438A.58CB3%adam.simpson@alcatel-lucent.com> <20150105212150.GA12406@verdi>
In-Reply-To: <20150105212150.GA12406@verdi>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 22:10:23 -0500
Message-ID: <002501d02af0$a5e9b960$f1bd2c20$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGjltNGA6NxS+SVvR3MWUyZmiOJSQHZmlw2AS5aQbUBtP3expzoy+lA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/yBWvOKCk5cGFVpkVL2trl_EXnF0
Cc: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 03:10:43 -0000

John:

Thank you for the feedback on this draft as to the informational versus
standards track. 

Sue Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 4:22 PM
To: Simpson, Adam (Adam)
Cc: idr wg; Susan Hares
Subject: Re: [Idr] 2 week working group LC for
draft-ietf-idr-add-paths-guidelines-07.txt (12/10 to 12/24)

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>;

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