[Pals] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 22 October 2015 12:36 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: pals@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328AC1A8A54; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.6.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20151022123645.30987.14154.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:36:45 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pals/iyvL8BSwJ9IElnDIxhckcCja-tc>
Cc: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com, draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, pals@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe.all@ietf.org, rjsparks@nostrum.com
Subject: [Pals] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services dicussion list." <pals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pals/>
List-Post: <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals>, <mailto:pals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:36:45 -0000
Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02: 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-pals-redundancy-spe/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >From my perspective some of the things that Robert raises in the Gen-ART review are very valid questions. I'm raising one of those items in this Discuss. The particular item that I’m interested in is the text in Section 3.2, which seems like explaining what happens in an example, but it also uses normative language and keywords to say what various entities should do. Yet, the example is just one example. Is there a need to lift the keyword statements out of this paragraph and generalise them to make sure that the specification is about the general case and not about the example? Alternatively, maybe I misunderstood the purpose of the keyword statements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (I also agree with Robert that the document is fairly hard to read. This isn’t the first document in the IETF to be like that, and I didn’t feel that this issue is discuss-worthy.)