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

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:01:12 -0700

Ben Campbell 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'm going to have to agree with Alvaro on this one. I do not understand
the purpose of publishing this, since it seems to be a snapshot of an
moving target. It will be out of date very quickly. I don't see how that
is helpful, and can imagine it might be harmful if future readers treat
this as current information.  A paragraph or two about why is valuable as
an RFC might help.

This is reminiscent of an RFC 6982 "implementation status section", but
that RFC explicitly recommends such sections be removed before
publication. 

In any case, I also cannot load the page referenced at the end of section
1. Hopefully that's a transient problem, but please make sure at the end
of section 1 works prior to publication.  (And hopefully forever if the
resulting RFC continues to reference it.)

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:45:30 -0400

Hi Ben,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mile-implementreport/

When the draft was started, the intent was to collect information to
demonstrate the level of interest in the work.  Russ Suggested that
MILE do an implementation report.  It took longer than expected, so
stating the purpose and that this is a snapshot in time is a good
addition.
> resulting RFC continues to reference it.)

It's not loading for me either, but did last week... The reference may
need to be removed.

Thanks,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen