Re: [rrg] [IRSG] IRSG Review: draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-12.txt

["Stephen D. Strowes" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Looking at this with fresh eyes based on Paul's feedback...

On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 07:43 +0100, Tony Li wrote:
> Any suggestions on how we could wordsmith this?

What's missing here is not in section 17, but in the abstract and the
introduction.

The emphasis in the current text is on the review of alternative
architectures, and not on what the title of the document should imply,
i.e.:
1: What the RRG was chartered to deliver
2: What the RRG is delivering in this document


For example: The abstract mentions nothing of a recommendation. It
requires a second sentence of the form "This document presents, as
recommendation of future directions for the IETF, solutions which will
aid future scalability of the Internet. To this end, this document
surveys [...]"

Likewise, section 1 must discuss the purpose of the recommendation.
Possibly achieved by inserting a second paragraph, with the following
structure based on what Tony wrote:

- Our directive was to use an open process to determine architecture(s)
which meets these challenges, forming the basis of a recommendation for
the IETF to pursue as a solution to Internet scalability.
- We chose to seek consensus on which architectures best meet the
requirements, but did not manage to do so.
- Thus, this document presents a recommendation decided by the co-chairs
and based on much discussion on the RRG mailing list.



Without mention of a recommendation in the abstract or section 1, the
reader arrives at section 1.1 with a discussion of a recommendation to
the IETF but no context of why the RRG is recommending anything. I think
this was the crux of Paul's issue?


Cheers,
-S.