Hi Stewart, > How about if we add a new first section that says: > > "This document describes a method of providing fast re-route > in an IP or MPLS network based on the use of an IP address > known to avoid the failure. At the time of publication there is no > immediate demand to deploy this technology, however in view > of the subtleties involved in the design of routing protocol > extensions to provide IP Fast Reroute it was considered desirable > to publish this document to place on record the design > consideration of the not-via address approach."
Your proposed text captures some important information. Thanks. But it misses some things I wanted included: - Who considered it desirable? - How should the reader process this document wrt implementation and deployment? - Is the method described here "complete" or is more work needed? Additionally: what does "no immediate demand" mean? Probably "no demand". Would you like me to have a stab at this (I did suggest text before)? Adrian PS - Document shepherd: don't forget you have an action as well. > Stewart > > > On 17/10/2012 04:42, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > 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 > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > . > > > > > -- > For corporate legal information go to: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
