Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:40:28 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Sep-6-2013
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has one minor issue
that should be fixed (or at least looked at) before publication.

Major: 0
Minor: 1
Nits: 0

Minor issue:

- This is a document on the standards track.  Therefore, it is rather
  disconcerting to see the following statement in the draft (end of
  Section 2): "[This document] is not a panacea, nor is it a deep and
  thorough approach to flap reduction."

  I understand the panacea part, it is the trailing phrase that I want
  to draw attention to.

  Now, I am not a routing expert so I would presume that despite the
  exhortations above, the chairs of the WG and the AD have looked at
  the document and are comfortable with the sentence I have pointed out.
  (Sorry if it has been discussed in the WG.)  Assuming that is the
  case, I am happy to proceed with this document.  Assuming it is not,
  would an Experimental designation be appropriate?

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 17:45:02 -0400

Vijay:

As the document shepherd this same phrase struck me a different way so I let
it go forward.    

"This document is not a panacea, nor is it a deep and
  thorough approach to flap reduction."

My understanding is that some authors (researchers and engineers) were from
Japan.  As careful engineers their concern is to be precise on the work they
have done.  They have addressed immediate concerns and known issues as
documented (2 years of work), but they feel additional work can be done.
Given this is an appropriate caveat for authors from the Japanese culture, I
was comfortable with this in the document.  I believe authors need to be
comfortable with the document along with the WG.  

The authors appear to be more cautions than the WG or RIPE who endorsed the
document. 

We'll see what others say. 

Sue  

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 4:40 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: General Area Review Team; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Stewart
Bryant
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rfd-usable-02

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has one minor issue that
should be fixed (or at least looked at) before publication.

Major: 0
Minor: 1
Nits: 0

Minor issue:

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 10:43:59 +0900

> As the document shepherd this same phrase struck me a different way so
> I let it go forward.
> 
> My understanding is that some authors (researchers and engineers) were
> from Japan.

well, gaijin living and working in japan for some years.  but yes, if
our natural researchers' instincts were not cautious/precise enough, we 
probably have been even more infected by this culture. :)

> As careful engineers their concern is to be precise on the work they
> have done.

precisely :)

> They have addressed immediate concerns and known issues as documented
> (2 years of work), but they feel additional work can be done.

take a look, for example, at geoff huston's work in the area.  it is
algorithmically more appealing, looking at the fundamental properties of
flap, as opposed to our continuing rfd's statistical approach.  but in
actual implementation, it turned out to be no more effective than our
hack, was vastly more costly in cpu and ram in the router, and therefore
was abandoned.

our hack merely tunes existing constants in existing algorithms and
running code.  we get a non-trivial win really cheaply.  but it would
take amazing hubris to call it a fundamental approach to flap reduction.

randy

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:41:24 -0500

Susan: Thanks for getting back to me.  More inline.

On 09/06/2013 04:45 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
> I was comfortable with this in the document.  I believe authors need to be

Great.  My intent was to bring attention to the sentence in the event
that it had escaped unscathed.  Of course, from your response as well
as the follow up from Randy Bush, it appears that adequate deliberations
went into the thinking that allowed the sentence to appear.

Given all this, I am fine with moving ahead with the draft.

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:42:33 +0900

> Given all this, I am fine with moving ahead with the draft.

hey, thanks for the review.  so few do reviews.

randy