Subject: [Idr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 20:55:50 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-06: No Objection

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-idr-as-migration/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've cleared my discuss position on the following. I will leave it as a
comment for reference purposes:

I am confused at the purpose of this draft. The introduction says "This
draft discusses some existing commonly-used BGP mechanisms" and "The
deployment of these mechanisms do not need to interwork with one another
to accomplish the desired results" These words suggest an informational
RFC, or maybe a BCP.

On the other hand, the draft is labeled as standards track, and updates
4271 (I assume due to Brian's previous comments). Sections 3.3 and 4.2
make heavy use of 2119 keywords in a way that sounds like it is defining
a standard (although I question whether these keywords in general impact
interoperability per se.)

So, I think there is a misalignment. If the intent is indeed to define a
standard, then I suggest the abstract and first paragraph of introduction
be rewritten to align with that. If not, then it shouldn't be standards
track nor update 4271.