[Isis-wg] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 May 2017 03:29 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197D3126CB6; Tue, 23 May 2017 20:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles@ietf.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org, hannes@gredler.at, isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <149559658700.28427.9646060289657210971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:29:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/4XDGTRPbj48YcEcow24EmgoPINk>
Subject: [Isis-wg] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 03:29:47 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles-05: Discuss

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:


Blocking Issue 1: I am truly concerned that the shepherd's write up
implies that there has been a failure by some authors to comply with IETF
IPR rules laid out in BCP 79. I do not believe the IETF can publish a
document under such circumstances.

Blocking Issue 2: This document is at odds with BCP 72, and is
inappropriate for publication with its current security considerations


If the Discuss objections I lay out can be addressed, I plan to abstain
for the many of the same reasons Mirja cites in her abstention. I find
the shepherd's write-up to contain an alarming number of red flags
indicating a lack of WG consensus and, lack of proper review by parties
who should be involved, claims that operator input has been ignored (for
a routing protocol no less), and indication that IPR disclosures have not
apparently been brought to the WG's attention.

These overarching process problems seem large enough that any comments I
may have on actual content -- such as an apparent lack of IPv6 support
(or, at least, a complete omission of IPv6 from the examples) -- would
seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.