[PANRG] Missing review comments on draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05 from Med Boucadair

Ooops.

Med (and Theresa) pointed out that -06 did not include review comments from
Med (see below). Thank you both for the wake up call, and -07 will reflect
those comments.

My apologies for that. I'm at SA2 in South Korea this week, so probably
won't send -07 until next week, but it's coming.

Med had one meta-comment (below), that I'd like for the research group to
consider. Please see below.

Best,

Spencer

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 6:24 PM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>
>
>
> Thank you for you effort on this document. I like the overall tone of the
> document.
>
>
>
> The document is about things to not (re)do. Those things would be much
> more clear if the readers have an idea of what we want to do at the first
> place with pan (not in term of solutions, but as design goals). I wonder
> whether some sort of priorities of pan design goals can be provided. See an
> example in Section 3.11 of RFC 6227.
>

I first thought about this comment as a review comment on our draft, but I
think it's more helpful to think about it as a new work item for the RG.
With that in mind,

If you don't (re)read RFC 6227, even taking a look at the table of contents
is helpful. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6227/?include_text=1.

After that, please continue.

   - Theresa also asked (in her review comments) for a statement about what
   Path Aware Networking was (or was not). I added a new subsection in -06
   that was expanding on the first sentence in our charter, and that satisfied
   Theresa's comment, but she's an RG document editor, so people who haven't
   spent multiple years in PANRG would likely benefit from more explanation
   about the kinds of things people are currently trying to do with Path Aware
   Networking.
   - I think this would be extremely helpful in focusing the research group
   on our goals (this is also related to, but not the same as, our research
   problems, which also can focus us).
   - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6227/?include_text=1 is only 8
   pages long, and that covered all of Internet routing. I don't think a
   document about our current goals for Path Aware Networking would have to be
   any longer. Do others disagree?
   - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6227/history/ says it took about
   four years from -00 to approval as an RFC, but I don't think PANRG needs
   four years to produce a design goals document, for a variety of reasons. Do
   others disagree?

Is this something we should talk about in Vancouver?

>
>
>
> You may find some other few comments at:
>
>
>
> * pdf :
> https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05-rev%20Med.pdf
>
> * doc:
> https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05-rev%20Med.doc
>
>
>
> Feel free to consider those comments as part of the Last Call.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Panrg [mailto:panrg-bounces@irtf.org] *De la part de* Spencer
> Dawkins at IETF
> *Envoyé :* mardi 10 décembre 2019 23:21
> *À :* panrg@irtf.org
> *Objet :* Re: [PANRG] I-D Action: draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05.txt
>
>
>
> Dear PANRG,
>
>
>
> I believe this version of the draft reflects our conversations at IETF 105
> and 106, and is ready for Brian and Jan to request Last Call.
>
>
>
> Comments and corrections are always welcome, of course.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Spencer The Editor
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 4:16 PM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Path Aware Networking RG RG of the IRTF.
>
>         Title           : Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to Deployment
> (A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken)
>         Author          : Spencer Dawkins
>         Filename        : draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05.txt
>         Pages           : 34
>         Date            : 2019-12-10
>
> Abstract:
>    At the first meeting of the Path Aware Networking Research Group, the
>    research group agreed to catalog and analyze past efforts to develop
>    and deploy Path Aware technologies, most of which were unsuccessful,
>    in order to extract insights and lessons for path-aware networking
>    researchers.
>
>    This document contains that catalog and analysis.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Panrg mailing list
> Panrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/panrg
>
>