Subject: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:30:57 +0100

Hi authors,

I have done my usual AD review on receiving a publication request for
your draft.

I have a question, a request, and a suggestion.

I'll put the document into "Revised I-D" state until we have resolved
these issues.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

---

Is this really standards track and not experimental? The reason I ask is
because it sounds (to me) that packet parallelization is quite an 
advanced feature that may have some "interesting" behavioral 
characteristics. If you tell me that, "this is stable, we know what we
are doing, the implementations that exist are really being deployed" 
then I'll be happy. If you say "we have an implementation and are seeing
how it behaves" then perhaps you should consider whether this is an
experiment.

This is a topic for discussion. You don't have to make a change until we
have covered the ground and understand what we are dealing with.

---

The IANA Considerations section needs some work. Please:
- Name the registries where you are requesting code points.
- Please request allocations (i.e. don't write descriptive text)
- the values you are asking for appear to come from the Standards
  Action space: why mention FCFS?
- Do you *need* the values you are asking for (18-20 and x10), are you 
  suggesting them, or do you not actually care? You need to make this
  clear in your text.

---

Some comments from the document shepherd are recorded in the write-up
and should get some attention from the authors.

Additionally, there is some English that could benefit from a quick
re-read and some polish.

---

From: "Haleplidis Evangelos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 01:54:20 +0300

Greetings Adrian,

Thank you for the review and for the suggestion. 

We have discussed with Joel and we agree to go with experimental as that may
be best for this draft to go for. I think we fall more into the category of
"we have an implementation and are seeing how it behaves" rather than "we
are deploying".

For the rest of your comments, we'll shortly provide a new draft that answer
your IANA and the shepherd's comments.

Regards,
Evangelos Haleplidis.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: forces [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian
> Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:31 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization
> 
> Hi authors,
> 
> Is this really standards track and not experimental? The reason I ask
> is because it sounds (to me) that packet parallelization is quite an
> then I'll be happy. If you say "we have an implementation and are
> seeing how it behaves" then perhaps you should consider whether this is
> an experiment.
> 
> This is a topic for discussion. You don't have to make a change until
> we have covered the ground and understand what we are dealing with.
> 
> ---
> 
> Additionally, there is some English that could benefit from a quick re-
> read and some polish.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> forces mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 12:12:19 +0100

Thanks Haleplidis and Joel,

That makes me a bit more comfortable. Hopefully we can move this forward
promptly.

Cheers,
Adrian

> From: Haleplidis Evangelos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 29 August 2014 23:54
> To: [email-masked]; draft-ietf-forces-packet-
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [forces] AD review of draft-ietf-forces-packet-parallelization
> 
> Greetings Adrian,
>