Subject: [mile] Stephen Farrell's Abstain on draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 06:29:58 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-09: 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-mile-implementreport/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I concur with Alvaro and Ben on this one. There is too much that is
too close to marketing text and that would not really help an
implementer or someone investigating these RFCs, or someone further
developing those RFCs. 

It seems to me that only sections 7.1 and 7.4 contain the kind of
information that I'd expect to find in an RFC like this. As far as I
can see only those two sections actually refer to sections of, or
content from, the RFCs concerned in a way that is useful to document
in an RFC.

I also could not access the URL in section 1. That seems like it
really would need fixing.

(I will admit that I may be somewhat biased here - IMO any document
with 26+ occurrences of the string "cyber" is likely not a good
candidate for an RFC;-)