Subject: [OSPF] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 03:39:42 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll note that the RFC Editor will move Section 1.2 to the end.  If
there's a reason you don't want that, you should let them know.

-- Section 10 --

   This specification also creates a registry for OSPFv3 Auto-
   Configuration (AC) LSA TLVs.  This registry should be placed in the
   existing OSPFv3 IANA registry, and new values can be allocated via
   IETF Consensus or IESG Approval.

The current term is "IETF Review" (not "IETF Consensus"), and you should
have a normative reference to RFC 5226 here.  It would also be good to
say when IESG Approval is an appropriate alternative to IETF Review.

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:51:48 +0000

Hi Barry, 
Thanks for your review. See inline.

>http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-autoconfig/

That¹s fine. 

>have a normative reference to RFC 5226 here.

I will add this. 

>  It would also be good to

I always interpreted this as either IETF Review or IESG Approval.

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:01:10 -0500

>>have a normative reference to RFC 5226 here.

Thanks.

> I always interpreted this as either IETF Review or IESG Approval.

Indeed.  But we'd like to avoid having people make requests to the
IESG when they should have done it with I-Ds and IETF Review.  So it'd
be nice (non-blocking nice) to have something that explains (very,
very briefly) when going directly to the IESG is appropriate.

b

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:06:25 +0200

> very briefly) when going directly to the IESG is appropriate.

I think we’ve been using this format (IETF review or IESG approval) for quite a long time. I think the guidance for when things are appropriate is more important for things like expert review. In this case the IESG is expected to be able to tell applicants to go for IETF review where needed. Most of the time the IESG review acts as a safety valve anyway; we can sometimes approve an allocation from another SDO, for instance, if it makes sense, etc, or an experimental value instead of standards track one.

If you want more words, I’d prefer “IETF Review or, under exceptional circumstances, IESG Approval”. I’m open to other words.

Jari

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:24:41 -0500

> I think we've been using this format (IETF review or IESG approval)
> for quite a long time. I think the guidance for when things are
> appropriate is more important for things like expert review. In this
> case the IESG is expected to be able to tell applicants to go for IETF
> review where needed. Most of the time the IESG review acts as a safety
> valve anyway; we can sometimes approve an allocation from another SDO,
> for instance, if it makes sense, etc, or an experimental value instead
> of standards track one.
>
> If you want more words, I'd prefer "IETF Review or, under exceptional
> circumstances, IESG Approval". I'm open to other words.

And I'm open to whatever you think is best, which is why I stressed
"non-blocking nice".  If you think it's not important to expand on
this, I accept that answer, with thanks for considering my comment.

b

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:38:53 +0200

Thanks. I’m fine with the “under exceptional circumstances” language from the previous e-mail. But this is something that we should remember to do with other drafts as well, not just this one.

Jari