Benoit: See my comments to Alvaro. Figure 1 - is scope of where interface fits into an existing routing system as management interface.
Sue -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 5:07 AM To: The IESG Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Abstain on draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: (with COMMENT) Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-10: Abstain When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I basically agree with Alvaro's points. On top of that, a problem statement in 2016 when the charter was done in 2012 ... hmm ... If (parts of) the content needs be published, it should be in the arch document. Figure 1 is architecture anyway, right? And ... a problem statement with a normative reference to an architecture. Really? _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
