Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-00

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 16:50:09 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:
IESG Telechat date: 09 Oct 2008

Summary:

(I was assigned this both as a LC review and a telechat review--with  
the telechat oddly happening before the end of the LC. Hopefully this  
review can serve both purposes.)

This draft may be ready to publish as an informational RFC, but there  
is an issue I'm not sure what to think of. See details below.

Major issues:

This draft does something I've never seen before, which is to  
explicitly call for two versions of the RFC: a PDF version that  
contains imbedded slides, and a text version which merely describes  
the slides. The one under review is the text version.

I understand the desire to do this, as this draft describes  
proceedings of an IETF/ITU-T joint effort, and each group has  
different standards of documentation. But I am not sure what to think  
of an RFC that is published in two different formats, with the content  
being substantially different between them.

I don't propose that this is a bad or or thing--merely something for  
the ADs to think about. It might work to have _both_ versions merely  
reference the slides as an external document, but that would have  
archival issues--which is I think the reason for this draft in the  
first place.

Nits/editorial comments:

Abstract, sentence 2:

The first part of the sentence (prior to the colon) does not parse. Is  
the word "of" a typo?

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:27:13 +0100

Ben

Here is the plan that was proposed by Russ Housley, May 2008 in a thread 
that included Olaf Kolkman:

=================

Here is what I think we should do:

1) Generate an ASCII document (draft-loa-xxxx-00.txt) that contains a 
description of the group that generated the document, and a pointer to 
the PDF (draft-loa-xxxx-00.pdf).

2) Put the same text in the front of the PDF followed by the slide deck.

3) Submit to Dave Ward as an Individual submission for publication as an 
Informational RFC.

4) No IETF Last Call -- we cannot accommodate any requests for changes.

5) IESG approval.

6) RFC Editor turns it into rfcXXXX.txt and rfcXXXX.pdf, where the text 
file points to the slides in the PDF file.

Russ

=================

The format of the documents that you reviewed conforms to that plan, and 
as you note the reason to go this way is to ensure proper archival.

Stewart

Ben Campbell wrote:
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 09:18:41 -0500

On Oct 5, 2008, at 8:27 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> Ben
>
> Here is the plan that was proposed by Russ Housley, May 2008 in a  
> thread that included Olaf Kolkman:
>
> =================
>
> 1) Generate an ASCII document (draft-loa-xxxx-00.txt) that contains  
> a description of the group that generated the document, and a  
> pointer to the PDF (draft-loa-xxxx-00.pdf).
>
> 3) Submit to Dave Ward as an Individual submission for publication  
> as an Informational RFC.
>
> 6) RFC Editor turns it into rfcXXXX.txt and rfcXXXX.pdf, where the  
> text file points to the slides in the PDF file.
>
> Russ
>
> =================
>
> The format of the documents that you reviewed conforms to that plan,  
> and as you note the reason to go this way is to ensure proper  
> archival.
>
> Stewart
>
>

Given that the point of my comment was to make sure people (people  
mostly being Russ) had were aware of this, that's good enough for me.

Thanks!

Ben.

That makes my review summary into "This draft is ready for publication  
as an informational RFC." The only remaining comment is the editorial  
nit concerning the abstract.