[RADIR] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement

Phil Roberts <roberts@isoc.org> Tue, 15 December 2009 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <roberts@isoc.org>
X-Original-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031F33A6A22; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:42:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CTMTO6jFgXqb; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:42:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp182.dfw.emailsrvr.com (smtp182.dfw.emailsrvr.com [67.192.241.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDCD3A69FA; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:42:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A31D716F1F7A; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:42:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: by relay18.relay.dfw.mlsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: roberts-AT-isoc.org) with ESMTPSA id 41F4616F1B13; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:42:13 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4B27D884.5020705@isoc.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:42:12 -0600
From: Phil Roberts <roberts@isoc.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: radir@ietf.org, chair@ietf.org, Olaf Kolkman <olaf@NLnetLabs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:46:03 -0800
Subject: [RADIR] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement
X-BeenThere: radir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Directorate <radir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radir>
List-Post: <mailto:radir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir>, <mailto:radir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:42:28 -0000

I've just finished reading this and it seems to me it is ready to 
publish.  I'm attaching a few comments (many of which you'll probably 
get in the pub process anyway).  What is needed to move this along at 
this point?

Regards,
Phil


----
In the abstract I'm assuming you'll delete the text about send comments.

Might be better to say "at the time of publication" than "which currently
      number in the hundreds of thousands of entries"

in both the PA and PI definitions it says "that the customer return
      those addresses (and renumber)" - I would guess renumbering is the 
true pain and this wording might lead one to believe it's the other way 
round.

in the background the reference [XXX] needs to be filled in

in the background you ask "[xxx-do we
      really discuss this issue sufficiently below?]" - I think the 
answer to this is yes.  One can make this a kind of never ending 
discussion and you point to the need for further study of this which 
could lead to the production of a more extensive standalone document on 
the topic.

"they must be able
   to initialize the RIB and FIB at boot time" - is there a question 
whether or not this can actually be done, or where this can be done in a 
reasonable time (startup of the RIB is so computationally expensive it 
can never complete?)

One might consider whether to rename "Business considerations" into 
"Operational considerations?"  There certainly are business 
considerations but there are also operational policy issues worked in 
that are important.   I'm not saying this because I balk at business 
considerations in docs like this, though others may complain about that 
also.

"would not be handle to"  should be "would not be able to handle"

"discdontiguous" should be "discontinguous"

" (As of July 2007, [3] states there are 25,836 active ASes in the
   routing system."  can probably be more current?