Hi Robert, Thank you for your comments. > I don't object to this document being published as an Informational RFC, but I > have some observations for the group and the IESG to consider. > > It's really not clear _why_ this document is being published as an > Informational RFC, Perhaps this, along with the -inter- document could be taken > together and then used to refine the group's charter text rather than > publishing them as separate RFCs? As a co-author of this document, I think that publishing intra-domain PS document and inter-domain PS document as RFCs would better help the community focus, discuss, understand, and address the problems of intra-domain SAV and inter-domain SAV. > It's hard to believe that the gap analysis here is _complete_. Rather, I think > it's trying to identify a set of problems for which there is consensus to do > some engineering work around. > > If it will help make the Internet better to publish this document to help steer > the group to appropriate technical work, then do so. But consider making it > clearer what its purpose is. > > (As this is an art-art review, I'll note explicitly that there are no ART > specific considerations to vet in this document). Yes, this document has been thoroughly discussed and revised before consensus is reached. At present, an intra-domain SAV architecture document and several intra-domain SAV solution documents have been proposed. I believe that publishing this document will help make the Internet better by steering the group to focus on the relevant gap and make improvements in the right direction. Thanks, Lancheng > -----Original Messages----- > From: "Robert Sparks via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Send time:Sunday, 01/12/2025 04:16:18 > To: art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-savnet-intra-domain-problem-statement.all@xxxxxxxx, last-call@xxxxxxxx, savnet@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-savnet-intra-domain-problem-statement-09 > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready > > I don't object to this document being published as an Informational RFC, but I > have some observations for the group and the IESG to consider. > > It's really not clear _why_ this document is being published as an > Informational RFC, Perhaps this, along with the -inter- document could be taken > together and then used to refine the group's charter text rather than > publishing them as separate RFCs? > > It's hard to believe that the gap analysis here is _complete_. Rather, I think > it's trying to identify a set of problems for which there is consensus to do > some engineering work around. > > If it will help make the Internet better to publish this document to help steer > the group to appropriate technical work, then do so. But consider making it > clearer what its purpose is. > > (As this is an art-art review, I'll note explicitly that there are no ART > specific considerations to vet in this document). > > > -- > last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
