A revised version of the RRG design goals document has been submitted to address Juergen's comments. Please see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-06
Thanks, Tony On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:52:13PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> This email is to initiate the IRSG Poll on publication of >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-05.txt >> (also http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-05) >> The state of the document is in IRSG tracker ticket #44: >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/44 >> >> The poll will run until January 22, 2011 due to the holidays. >> As per the IRSG procedures, when responding to the poll please respond >> explicitly with one of the four defined conclusions: >> Ready to publish >> Not ready to publish >> No objection >> Request more time to review >> >> If you find the document is not ready for publication, please provide a >> detailed review and actionable comments. > > I have read draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-05 and I understand from the > browsing of the mailing list that this document summarizes the design > goals that were used when the RRG started. While I am fine with the > content of the document, I think some additional edits are needed to > comply with RFC 5743 and hence I vote "Not ready to publish". > > Actionable comments are below (the reason for the not ready to publish > is comment a), the others are editorial nits that can be fixed easily > now as well). > > a) The document should comply with section 2.1 "Research Group > Preparation" of RFC 5743. The document should state the level of > review/support this document has enjoyed and in this particular > case it might be also be appropriate to document the historic > nature of the design goals (if my reading of the mailing list is > correct). > > b) What is the value of defining a priority "Optional" that is never > used? I would simply remove that definition from section 1.2. > > c) The short title "Design Goals" is perhaps a bit too terse. What > about "Scalable Routing Design Goals" or whatever you can > reasonably fit into the headings? > > d) The following reference seems misplaced in section 3.6: > > [...] This can be costly, error- > prone and painful. [RFC5887] Automated tools, once developed, are > expected to provide significant help in reducing the renumbering > pain. [...] > > I guess the text should have been: > > [...] This can be costly, error- > prone and painful [RFC5887]. Automated tools, once developed, are > expected to provide significant help in reducing the renumbering > pain. [...] > > e) In section 3.7, s/intefaces/interfaces/ > > f) Since you use "design goal" throughout the document, I suggest to > change section 3.11 by replacing requirement with design goal to > achieve consistency: > > OLD > > The following table summarizes the priorities of the requirements > discussed above. > > +------------------------+------------------+ > | Requirement | Priority | > > NEW > > The following table summarizes the priorities of the design goals > discussed above. > > +------------------------+------------------+ > | Design goal | Priority | > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > _______________________________________________ > IRSG mailing list > i...@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/irsg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
