Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart LC review : draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-05

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:45:48 -0400

Did anyone do a Telechat review of this document?  It is now at version -07.

Russ

At 01:38 PM 3/13/2009, Robert Sparks wrote:
>Apologies that this is late.
>
>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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>you may receive.
>
>Document: draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-05
>Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>Review Date: 13Mar09
>IETF LC End Date: 5Mar09
>IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>
>Summary:
>
>Assuming this draft is intended to inform the protocol development
>work the ROLL group is rechartering to take on, it has some
>significant issues you should consider addressing before publishing.
>
>This is my primary concern and suggestion:
>
>There is a lot of interesting background information in the draft, but
>its presented such that it is very (almost completely) unclear what is
>background and what the requirements for the protocol to be developed
>really are. Restructuring this into an informative "Motivations and
>Background" section (or separate draft) and a much more concise
>"Requirements for a Protocol" section would result in a much more
>useful tool for the next step of work.
>
>While evaluating that suggestion, please consider:
>
>The document has a very inconsistent use of 2119 language (MUST,
>etc.), including instances of lower-case versions of the words where
>the context implies it is trying to place a requirement on the
>protocol, and use of the upper-case versions where it is placing
>requirements on aspects of the application other than the protocol
>being discussed.
>
>There are a few design decisions being stated as requirements
>(example: requiring that devices MUST have a minimal link on time when
>the requirement is that the protocol not make battery saving behavior
>impossible. Second example: text around network-wide and application
>keys affecting packet encryption).
>
>The document uses the terms  "Zero-Configuration" and "Plug-and-Play"
>for a generic requirement against manual configuration when adding
>elements. Those terms have meaning beyond what the document intends.
>
>The document requires that the protocol be allowed to run with "no
>security". The protocol being considered involves devices connected to
>the Internet as a whole, and these words should be more carefully
>considered - the real requirement (at least one that I can infer from
>the text) is that the protocol support diagnostic configurations.
>
>There are several sections of text that should acknowledge they are
>very US-centric or be adjusted to be less so.
>
>Many of the requirements that will affect the protocol design are very
>unclear - for example, are the requirements in section 5.3.1 currently
>say that devices SHOULD re-establish communication to lots of things,
>while I suspect it's trying to say that if the device is going to 
>re- establish communication it SHOULD be able to do so within this
>timeperiod.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gen-art mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>

---

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:04:46 -0500

I re-assigned that document to Francis for the telechat:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-090924.html

But, I've not yet seen a review. 

Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:46 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart LC review :
draft-ietf-roll-building-routing-reqs-05

Did anyone do a Telechat review of this document?  It is now at version
-07.

Russ

At 01:38 PM 3/13/2009, Robert Sparks wrote:
>I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer

>for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
>Assuming this draft is intended to inform the protocol development work

>the ROLL group is rechartering to take on, it has some significant 
>issues you should consider addressing before publishing.
>
>The document has a very inconsistent use of 2119 language (MUST, etc.),

>including instances of lower-case versions of the words where the 
>context implies it is trying to place a requirement on the protocol, 
>and use of the upper-case versions where it is placing requirements on 
>aspects of the application other than the protocol being discussed.
>