Re: [rrg] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13.txt

[Robin Whittle <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tony,

I understand there is no longer a "Normative references" section.
Version 13:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13

retains mention of draft-narten-radir-problem-statement and
draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals in the introduction and puts these
references with all the others - in "Informative references".

The RADIR mailing list:

  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radir/current/

has had no activity since 2010-02-25.  So I guess it is unlikely that
their Problem Statement will be worked on further or progressed to
being an RFC:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05


You wrote recently (msg07298) about the Design Goals I-D, last updated
in 2007-07-08:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01

"And it's now time that we discuss improvements on it."

Do you still intend to update this?  If so, over what sort of
time-frame and to a new version I-D or with the intention of it
becoming an RFC?


Looking at the diffs you mentioned:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13.txt

I think your changes to the abstract are good.  Likewise most of the
new section 1.1 "Background to this document".

I suggest changing:

  For pragmatic reasons, each submission was severely constrained in
  length.

to something like:

  The chairs set a limit of 500 words for the summary, critique,
  rebuttal and counterpoint.

The 500 word limit and the restriction of one critique did not result
from group consensus.


The following is based on my "List of critiques v3" message:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07311.html

I suggest mentioning that 8 of the 15 proposals have "rebuttals" and
that no-one submitted any counterpoints.

The critiques of 4 of the architectures were written by one or more
designers of the architecture.  One further critique was partially
written by one of the designers.  While I understand you don't want to
list details of authors etc. I think readers of the report would
assume that the critiques were written by someone other than the
designers - yet this is not the case for four or five architectures.


BTW, your messages in the archives have each paragraph as a single
line, making them hard to read.  Perhaps the header:

  Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

causes MHonArc to do this.

 - Robin