Subject: [RADIR] finishing the problem statement

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:07:18 -0400

We are a bit overdue on revising the problem statement and getting it
out...

I spoke with Olaf a while back and he seemed to think that much of the
initial excitement about the topic had died down again, and anyway RRG
is where the work is actually happening. So he is inclined to see the
document shipped and close the directorate. However, the current
problem statement (as we have discussed amongst  ourselves) does not
have any sort of broad concensus, so it couldn't get any sort of
official blessing. If we were to ask for publication now, we'd
likely be told to publish it as individual submission.

As we've discussed before, Olaf has said the pressures on routing
section had good stuff, but that the business section in particular
was problematic. We've had past discussions about that together with
some suggestions for improvements.

I would like to get this document published as an informational RFC,
but one with IETF blessing/support. That means we have to get folk
familiar with this space to support publication of our document.

I spent some time going over the document in January, reviewed our
previous discussions and made a number of changes. I then didn't
followup and close the loop and get back to this list.

One thing that of course happens when one re-reads a document after 6
months is that one sees all sorts of things that should be tweaked.

Rather than try to do an issue by issue review, I've just gone ahead
and revised the document; I'll send it (and diffs) in separate messages.

The ID cutoff is today (7PM West Coast Time). I'd like to go ahead and
post the revised document, but if anyone thinks I should not (whether
on principle -- because you want to review more carefully first, or
because you have specific issues with the revision), please speak
up. I plan to post unless I get a "no". (I don't have plans to have
the document discussed in SF, so it is not critical that it get posted
today).

Finally, I've used the following boilerplate:

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process.  Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

I assume that we are all OK with submitting under the updated
boilerplate that grants full rights to the IETF trust, but the
document can't say that until I get explicite confirmation from each
of us on that point.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:15:22 -0400

Thomas Narten <[email-masked]> writes:

> The ID cutoff is today (7PM West Coast Time).

Oops, make that 1700 PDT, which is 5PM West Coast Time.

Thomas

---

From: Jason Schiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:02:25 -0500 (EST)

I'm ok with the new boiler plate...  looking over the new text now.

__Jason

==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       [email-masked]
UUNET / Verizon                         [email-masked]

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Thomas Narten wrote:

> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:07:18 -0400
> From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [RADIR] finishing the problem statement
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RADIR mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radir
>

---

From: "Azinger, Marla" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 17:13:31 -0400

sorry.  I looked it over this morning and only replied to Thomas.  I think its appropriate as revised and only pointed out some gramatical errors this time.

Cheers
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RADIR] finishing the problem statement

__Jason

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Thomas Narten wrote:

> official blessing. If we were to ask for publication now, we'd likely
> be told to publish it as individual submission.
>
> because you have specific issues with the revision), please speak up.
> I plan to post unless I get a "no". (I don't have plans to have the
> document discussed in SF, so it is not critical that it get posted
> today).
>