Re: [nmrg] Review of draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-04

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Kostas,

Thanks for the review. I will leave the detailed issues for
Michael since he is the document editor. I do want to comment on
some general points in line below.

On 28/10/2014 07:58, Kostas Pentikousis wrote:
> Dear authors, all,
> 
> I reviewed draft-irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-04.
> Overall, the draft is easy-to-read, but it feels more like
> "original" work than the RG documents I'm familiar with. As I
> mentioned in the Toronto meeting and on the list, the draft
> lacks the appropriate list of "citations and references to
> relevant research publications". I personally do not consider
> sufficient the three references mentioned in passing ("There
> is a large literature, including several useful overview
> papers (e.g., [Samaan], [Movahedi], and [Dobson])"). 

This is not an academic research publication or a dissertation,
that would require a complete literature review. I think that
mentioning a few papers is really all that is called for. We did
try to identify papers that seemed to survey the field.

> Further,
> several assumptions remain unstated (could be fixed by adding
> a new section) and certain inconsistencies persist in this
> revision (see below).
> 
> In summary: If this draft is to become the reference RFC on
> Autonomic Networking, 

Is that the goal? I see it more as a snapshot of current
understanding.

> more work is needed in the RG.

I am sure more work is needed; hence my idea that this draft is
a snapshot.

> General comments: -----------------
> 
> The draft includes some normative-resembling language, which
> may be misleading to uninitiated readers:

Really? They are just normal English words and we do not cite
RFC 2119, of course. And it is intended to be an Informational
RFC, so I don't see any real reason for confusion. (The upper
case NOT could be made lower case.)

<snip>

 > Also, have we reached consensus in NMRG that "The goal of the
> work on autonomic networking in the IETF is therefore not
> just to create autonomic functions, but to define a common
> infrastructure that autonomic functions can use." And, why is
> an NMRG draft indicating what the IETF goal is?

It's pretty common for work in the IRTF to be preparation for
work in the IETF. You are correct that decisions about the IETF
are taken in the IETF, so I agree that this should be rephrased
to make the responsibility clear.

Regards,

    Brian