Subject: [Pals] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:36:45 -0700

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02: Discuss

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-pals-redundancy-spe/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From my perspective some of the things that Robert raises in the Gen-ART
review are very valid questions. I'm raising one of those items in this
Discuss.

The particular item that I’m interested in is the text in Section 3.2,
which seems like explaining what happens in an example, but it
also uses normative language and keywords to say what various entities
should do. Yet, the example is just one example. Is there a need to lift
the
keyword statements out of this paragraph and generalise them to make
sure that the specification is about the general case and not about the
example? Alternatively, maybe I misunderstood the purpose of the keyword
statements.

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

(I also agree with Robert that the document is fairly hard to read. This
isn’t
the first document in the IETF to be like that, and I didn’t feel that
this
issue is discuss-worthy.)