Hi Eric, Responses in-line below (but with agreements removed). I’ll push out the slightly modified version as soon as I hear back from you.
Thanks again, Alia From: Eric Gray [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:14 AM To: Alia Atlas Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement Alia, Hope everyone enjoyed the holidays. Responses in-line below… From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 5:29 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement Importance: High Hi Eric, Thanks for your review. I really appreciate it. On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Eric Gray <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement Reviewer: Eric Gray Review Date: 12/16/2014 Intended Status: Informational Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before before publication. The document has nits that should also be considered prior to publication. Minor Issues: ========== Section 5 title is "Desired Aspects of ..." but the first sentence talks about "required aspects ..." I believe that the authors should be consistent. Keeping required The actual "key aspects needed" are a mixture or required and desired behaviors. Because the draft does not refer to RFC 2119 terminology, it is not clear if this is intended or a result of narrative style choices. I'm not sure which ones you are reading as desired vs. required. The intent is that all are required; trade-offs do happen. Changing the section title helps. The issues that remain are less significant when considered as “aspects to be considered.” I wanted to avoid being pedantic, but one example (now more minor) is as follows: - 1st paragraph uses the phrase “describes required aspects” - the 1st list item (multiple simultaneous asynchronous operations), however, says that a single application should be able to … I am well used to pendatry ;-) Without the reference to RFC 2119, “should” may be ambiguously interpreted according to standard English as something likely but not required. I think what was probably meant in this case is that protocol is required to support applications that perform multiple concurrent operations (which is something we believe applications should be able to do). The current text is not explicit about this as a protocol requirement, if that is what is intended, instead making the protocol requirement implicit based on the way that we believe applications would likely use it. There are similar issues with “High Throughput”, “Low Latency” and “Multi- Channel.” One advantage of referring to RFC 2119 is it makes “should” less ambiguous, and defines this term (and other terms) as “requirement levels.” But I am okay with leaving this as is, because of the heading change. Most people will be able to figure out what is meant, eventually. ☺ I think so also. This is describing what the solution should look like – not giving the detailed protocol requirements. Note that this section mentions "extraction of detailed router state" which is one form of access that may both require that requests are authenticated and that information may not be intercepted. NITS: ==== In the Introduction, second line of the first paragraph, "With scale ..." should start a new paragraph to be consistent with the next paragraph. eh, not worried about the consistency given it would leave the first paragraph with one sentence. Single-sentence paragraphs are quite common. See, for instance the earlier paragraph in the latest draft that reads “This draft will expire on July 10, 2015.” Again, I was trying to avoid pedanticism. Sigh. More important in either prose or specification is that a paragraph represents a single block/concept in whatever it is you are trying to construct. Even in prose, if you have an opening sentence that introduces two things you want to talk about, then either both of them or neither of them should be in the same paragraph. For prose, this is mostly about flow. In specification, it is slightly more important. A reader who is skimming the introductory text before plowing into the salient parts of the specification is likely to actually miss the point you’re making about scale because it’s buried in the paragraph that introduces issues with both scale and complexity. If scale were important, it probably would be in a separate paragraph. Of course, you could (in prose anyway) do this deliberately as a way to place greater emphasis on the second point, sort of along the following lines: “There are two major kinds of ideas that we can expect to encounter in our discussions: good ideas and bad ideas. Bad ideas are obviously something we want to quickly dispense with. “Good ideas, on the other hand, should be …” In my opinion, use of this sort of literary device in a specification would be just a bit inappropriate. If the text is not worth emphasis, leave it out. I do think it is worth the emphasis and agree that there is almost parallelism in the text deliberately. I just didn’t feel it was necessary, but if you feel strongly enough to write many paragraphs about it, I’ll change it.
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
