Subject: [rrg] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13.txt

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:57:41 -0700

Hi all,

The following version includes some proposed changes that address some of the comments that have been received during the IRSG review.  Please comment.

Diffs from -12 can be found here:  http://tinyurl.com/25dqy9m

Regards,
Tony

Begin forwarded message:

> From: [email-masked]
> Date: September 7, 2010 2:45:02 PM PDT
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13.txt 
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> 
> 	Title           : Recommendation for a Routing Architecture
> 	Author(s)       : T. Li
> 	Filename        : draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13.txt
> 	Pages           : 73
> 	Date            : 2010-09-07
> 
> It is commonly recognized that the Internet routing and addressing
> architecture is facing challenges in scalability, multihoming, and
> inter-domain traffic engineering.  This document presents, as a
> recommendation of future directions for the IETF, solutions which
> will aid the future scalability of the Internet.  To this end, this
> document surveys many of the proposals that were brought forward for
> discussion in this activity, as well as some of the subsequent
> analysis and the architectural recommendation of the chairs.  This
> document is a product of the Routing Research Group.
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13.txt
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:12:38 +1000

Hi Tony,

I understand there is no longer a "Normative references" section.
Version 13:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13

retains mention of draft-narten-radir-problem-statement and
draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals in the introduction and puts these
references with all the others - in "Informative references".

The RADIR mailing list:

  http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/radir/current/

has had no activity since 2010-02-25.  So I guess it is unlikely that
their Problem Statement will be worked on further or progressed to
being an RFC:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05

You wrote recently (msg07298) about the Design Goals I-D, last updated
in 2007-07-08:

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-01

"And it's now time that we discuss improvements on it."

Do you still intend to update this?  If so, over what sort of
time-frame and to a new version I-D or with the intention of it
becoming an RFC?

Looking at the diffs you mentioned:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-13.txt

I think your changes to the abstract are good.  Likewise most of the
new section 1.1 "Background to this document".

I suggest changing:

  For pragmatic reasons, each submission was severely constrained in
  length.

to something like:

  The chairs set a limit of 500 words for the summary, critique,
  rebuttal and counterpoint.

The 500 word limit and the restriction of one critique did not result
from group consensus.

The following is based on my "List of critiques v3" message:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg07311.html

I suggest mentioning that 8 of the 15 proposals have "rebuttals" and
that no-one submitted any counterpoints.

The critiques of 4 of the architectures were written by one or more
designers of the architecture.  One further critique was partially
written by one of the designers.  While I understand you don't want to
list details of authors etc. I think readers of the report would
assume that the critiques were written by someone other than the
designers - yet this is not the case for four or five architectures.

BTW, your messages in the archives have each paragraph as a single
line, making them hard to read.  Perhaps the header:

  Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

causes MHonArc to do this.

 - Robin