Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:42:33 +0100

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.