Vijay: As the document shepherd this same phrase struck me a different way so I let it go forward.
"This document is not a panacea, nor is it a deep and thorough approach to flap reduction." My understanding is that some authors (researchers and engineers) were from Japan. As careful engineers their concern is to be precise on the work they have done. They have addressed immediate concerns and known issues as documented (2 years of work), but they feel additional work can be done. Given this is an appropriate caveat for authors from the Japanese culture, I was comfortable with this in the document. I believe authors need to be comfortable with the document along with the WG. The authors appear to be more cautions than the WG or RIPE who endorsed the document. We'll see what others say. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:40 PM To: [email protected] Cc: General Area Review Team; [email protected]; [email protected]; Stewart Bryant Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: Sep-6-2013 IETF LC End Date: Unknown IESG Telechat date: Unknown This draft is basically ready for publication, but has one minor issue that should be fixed (or at least looked at) before publication. Major: 0 Minor: 1 Nits: 0 Minor issue: - This is a document on the standards track. Therefore, it is rather disconcerting to see the following statement in the draft (end of Section 2): "[This document] is not a panacea, nor is it a deep and thorough approach to flap reduction." I understand the panacea part, it is the trailing phrase that I want to draw attention to. Now, I am not a routing expert so I would presume that despite the exhortations above, the chairs of the WG and the AD have looked at the document and are comfortable with the sentence I have pointed out. (Sorry if it has been discussed in the WG.) Assuming that is the case, I am happy to proceed with this document. Assuming it is not, would an Experimental designation be appropriate? Thanks, - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email protected] Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
