Subject: Re: mboned: WGLC for draft-ietf-mboned-addrarch-02.txt

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:50:42 +0300 (EEST)

(FWIW, I personally think the doc should be a BCP; the mechanisms 
described are certainly sufficiently well-established for that, and 
revising the doc would be possible later without changing the BCP 
number.)

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, John Kristoff wrote:
>> 	ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-addrarch-02.txt
>>
>> 	The document's proposed status is Informational.
>>
>> 	Please review the document carefully, and send your
>> 	feedback to the list.  Please also indicate whether or
>> 	not you believe that this document is ready to go to the
>> 	IESG.
>
> I don't see any major problems with the content.  Personally I'd
> be interested in seeing something more focused on the history of
> all the proposed solutions and an analysis of where they have
> succeeded and where they have failed, but perhaps that is something
> better for a research-oriented paper.  For example, it would be
> helpful to understand more about the reasons, at least for me
> since I don't know, for MADCAP's failure.

I'd certainly be interested in including brief history myself, because 
that would allow newer folks to learn from past mistakes (and 
successes).  Unfortunately, I don't have that context myself, so 
adding such would require that someone sends text.  I'm open to 
suggestions...

I've taken almost all your text improvement suggestions as-is, and 
slightly rephrased the rest. (I'll send a working copy off-list.)

I should explictly note to the WG that there was a set of suggestions 
which were more than just editorial:

====
  addresses).  However, this is a bad approach architecturally, as we
   should focus on enhancing and deploying service discovery and address
   assignment (as needed) instead of encouraging a "land-grab" of
   multicast addresses.

[John]
I don't particularly like the "we should focus" part.  I don't think
this document should dictate what solution should be worked and I'm
not sure I agree with the sentiment in any case. [...]
====

.. but I agree that this document is not the right place to talk about 
which direction we should move towards, the main purpose should be to 
describe what exists *today*, so I agree (in this document) with 
John's comments.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/