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

Adam,

First, I would greatly appreciate it if you and others could read the
ballot write-up.  I did
try to explain what I did to mitigate the concerns in the shepherd's
write-up; as far as I
can tell, this is a case of one person being in the rough.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-l2bundles/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>

As far as the IPR declarations go, I have asked the two authors that didn't
declare their
knowledge of IPR to do so.  Ebben has already done so.  I expect Clarence
will as well;
he also works with and at the same company as another author; I do not have
active concern.
This is part of a process that we do in Routing, where each author is asked
to confirm that
all IPR has been disclosed at  WGLC.  It is not an indication that IPR
rules have been
violated.  It's a process that we've added in Routing to help remind folks.

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

Yes, this should at least have the same common text as other ISIS documents.
Sorry I missed this - I was focused on other aspects.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>

Please read my write-up - which I did spend time on to explain some of these
aspects.   The existing IPR claim - by a non-author- was brought up to the
WG
and very briefly discussed, as is typical.

> 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.
>

If you have specific technical concerns, they are, of course, easier to
just deal with
at the same time.  The document does, of course, support IPv6 - as is
clearly indicated
in Section 2.1 where, for instance,  use of " IPv6 Interface Address
(sub-TLV 12
defined in [RFC6119])" is mentioned.  The appendix doesn't include an IPv6
example,
but the primary purpose there is to explain the complex sub-TLV structuring
since
the standard bit-fields ascii art was challenging to do in a meaningful way.

Regards,
Alia

______________________________________________

> Isis-wg mailing list
> Isis-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>