RE: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 27 November 2012 23:32 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C0F21E8030 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:32:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DpaNxVGsBNDQ for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EF221E8034 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:32:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qARNWK4B017235; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:32:20 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qARNWJbf017220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:32:20 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses.all@tools.ietf.org
References: <05f201cdac19$72ac3260$58049720$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <05f201cdac19$72ac3260$58049720$@olddog.co.uk>
Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:32:19 -0000
Message-ID: <047c01cdccf7$71eb5910$55c20b30$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKMOahqsbpvmEHaRx2w74LqSAffqJaBeyDA
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:32:27 -0000
At the risk of being a pain... The working group asked for publication of this document and over 40 days ago I sent a review that asked for two relatively minor actions. Can I hope for these to be completed soon? Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Adrian Farrel > Sent: 17 October 2012 04:43 > To: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org > Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses > > Hi, > > I've done my usual AD review of your draft prior to issuing IETF last > call and passing the I-D for IESG evaluation. The main purpose of the > review is to catch issues that might come up in later reviews and to > ensure that the document is ready for publication as and RFC. > > I only have a small point that needs to be resolved in a new revision of > the document, so I will put it into "Revised I-D Needed" state in the > data tracker and wait to hear from you. > > But I would also like the document shepherd to make an update to the > write-up as described below. > > As always, all my comments are up for discussion and negotiation. > > Thanks for the work, > Adrian > > === > > The Shepherd write-up says... > > > There is consensus in the WG to proceed with publication. > > Looking at the mailing list, I see no comments positive or negative > during WG last call. What is more, I see no discussion of the I-D > going back four years (at which point I lost the will to search > further). How do you justify there being WG consensus for this document? > > I think this issue can be resolved by a revision to the write-up with > some explanation of the justification for publishing this as a WG > document. I would also like the write-up to explain the purpose of the > document as discussed in the following point. > > --- > > I was also unclear why you want to publish the document at all. I see a > note from Alvaro (extending the WG last call for an extra week) that > says: > > > this document is being published as an Informational RFC for > > completeness purposes...as has been discussed in the mailing list and > > live meetings. > > So I think that gives me the intended purpose: completeness. But I don't > know what that means, and the document doesn't help me at all. > > Furthermore, I couldn't find the discussion of this intention to publish > on the mailing list. > > Based on some conversations with Stewart, I understand that the idea > here is to capture the current state of discussions in the WG so that > they are not lost. But I also assume that the WG has no interest in > pursuing these ideas further. So it would be reasonable to add a > significant note to the Abstract and the Introduction about the > purpose. This would say something along the lines of... > > The idea is to capture the current state of discussions in the WG so > that they are not lost, can be referenced, and might be picked up > again later. The WG currently has no interest in pursuing these ideas > further. It is not intended that this document as currently written > should form the basis of an implementation or deployment. > > With this in mind, my review is considerably lighter than it would be > for a standards track protocol specification, and I think the document > will be fine for advancement. > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
- AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addres… Adrian Farrel
- RE: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-ad… Adrian Farrel
- Re: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-ad… Stewart Bryant
- RE: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-ad… Adrian Farrel