Hi Robert,
Thanks for your review. As Andy explained, in the Routing Area, there are multiple points in the process where folks are made aware/reminded of IPR and we follow
RFC6702 suggestions. And for folks not participating actively in the Working Group, they still have the opportunity at IETF Last Call (which has a pointer to IPR) to discuss/express concern.
If you would like to discuss/recommend additional considerations for the IETF to follow on IPR, it would be good to change the subject line as I don’t think
the current subject line is much of an attention-grabberJ
I’ll let the authors answer your questions on the draft itself.
Again, thanks for your careful review-
Deborah
From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:agmalis@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 4:52 AM
To: Robert Sparks
Cc: General Area Review Team; ietf@xxxxxxxx; pals@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe.all@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
Robert,
Thanks for your review of the draft.
As PALS WG co-chair, I would like to address one point in your review:
There is a process issue that the IESG should pay attention to. The shepherd writeup says this: "There is one IPR declaration (1911) raised in November 2012 against an early version of the draft. There was no discussion in the WG related
to this." That happens sometimes, but it's much better to have a real indication that the group considered the disclosure and explicitly decided not to change directions.
The IPR declaration is against the original individual draft, draft-dong-pwe3-redundancy-spe. The IPR declaration was from a company that was not represented as an author on the draft, and offered free licencing with reciprocity. At the
time, no concerns were raised by either the authors or from anyone in the WG in response to the declaration. This, IMHO, is normal operating procedure when IPR declarations are made, especially by non-author entities and early in the process. The usual concern
is when declarations come in late in the process, especially from an author company. Neither was the case here, it was still an individual draft. And of course, the declaration was clear for all to see during both WG adoption and WG LC polls.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-pals-redundancy-spe-02
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 16 Oct 2015
IETF LC End Date: 19 Oct 2015
IESG Telechat date: 22 Oct 2015
Summary: Almost ready for publication as PS but with issues that need to be discussed/addressed
This document is hard to read. It is more acronym-laden than it
needs to be.
-----
There is a process issue that the IESG should pay attention to.
The shepherd writeup says this:
"There is one IPR declaration (1911) raised in November 2012 against
an early version of the draft. There was no discussion in the WG
related to this."
That happens sometimes, but it's much better to have a real indication
that the group considered the disclosure and explicitly decided not to
change directions.
-----
The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph (declaring multi-homing on both
sides of an S-PE out of scope) should be moved earlier in the document.
The introduction and perhaps even the abstract can be clearer about
what _is_ in scope.
It needs to be clearer where the normative description of behavior is.
I think you're intending it to be the first part of section 3. I have
not worked through the references enough to ensure that it is complete.
The third paragraph starts off "In general, ...". Are there any
specific cases where the requirements that follow do not hold? If so,
there needs to be more description. If not, please delete "In general,".
Are sections 3.1 and 3.2 supposed to be only examples? Would the
specification of the protocol be complete if they were deleted? If not,
something needs to be moved up into the main part of section 3.
For instance, is the SHOULD at the end of 3.1 a requirement placed by
this document, or is it restating a requirement from somewhere else?
Similarly, please inspect the SHOULD in the second paragraph of 3.2.
I also suggest moving 3.1 and 3.2 into their own section, clearly
labeling them as examples.
Is it worth more explanation in the document why you've added the
MUST NOT in the first paragraph of section 3?
The security considerations section only points off to other documents.
Most of those just point to each other. Chasing it back, there's some
meat in the security considerations section of 4447, and some in 5085,
but it's a real chase to find what's relevant. Please consider calling
out what an implementer needs to consider explicitly here.
|