[RADIR] finishing the problem statement

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Mon, 09 March 2009 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: radir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1895528C187 for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c4-eQhw+c8Qy for <radir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com (e6.ny.us.ibm.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0843D3A6B0C for <radir@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com []) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n29F8u3A029871 for <radir@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:08:56 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com []) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n29F7lOE171812 for <radir@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:07:47 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback []) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com ( with ESMTP id n29F7h5v002293 for <radir@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:07:44 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-131-130.mts.ibm.com []) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com ( with ESMTP id n29F7JbA032002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <radir@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:07:21 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com []) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id n29F7Ipg014272 for <radir@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:07:18 -0400
Message-Id: <200903091507.n29F7Ipg014272@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: radir@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:07:18 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [RADIR] finishing the 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: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:07:15 -0000

We are a bit overdue on revising the problem statement and getting it

I spoke with Olaf a while back and he seemed to think that much of the
initial excitement about the topic had died down again, and anyway RRG
is where the work is actually happening. So he is inclined to see the
document shipped and close the directorate. However, the current
problem statement (as we have discussed amongst  ourselves) does not
have any sort of broad concensus, so it couldn't get any sort of
official blessing. If we were to ask for publication now, we'd
likely be told to publish it as individual submission.

As we've discussed before, Olaf has said the pressures on routing
section had good stuff, but that the business section in particular
was problematic. We've had past discussions about that together with
some suggestions for improvements.

I would like to get this document published as an informational RFC,
but one with IETF blessing/support. That means we have to get folk
familiar with this space to support publication of our document.

I spent some time going over the document in January, reviewed our
previous discussions and made a number of changes. I then didn't
followup and close the loop and get back to this list.

One thing that of course happens when one re-reads a document after 6
months is that one sees all sorts of things that should be tweaked.

Rather than try to do an issue by issue review, I've just gone ahead
and revised the document; I'll send it (and diffs) in separate messages.

The ID cutoff is today (7PM West Coast Time). I'd like to go ahead and
post the revised document, but if anyone thinks I should not (whether
on principle -- because you want to review more carefully first, or
because you have specific issues with the revision), please speak
up. I plan to post unless I get a "no". (I don't have plans to have
the document discussed in SF, so it is not critical that it get posted

Finally, I've used the following boilerplate:

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

I assume that we are all OK with submitting under the updated
boilerplate that grants full rights to the IETF trust, but the
document can't say that until I get explicite confirmation from each
of us on that point.