[Irtf-rr] Changes in draft-irtf-routing-reqs-03

[RJ Atkinson]

On Jul 30, 2004, at 16:59, avri at psg.com wrote:
> The following is a draft response to the RFC Editor's comments:
>
>> (1) Formal problems
>> 	The IESG is going to balk at the Security Considerations section.
>> 	You need at least to specifically enumerate the section(s) where
>> 	you talk about security issues.  A little blather here would not
>> 	be amiss... ;-)
>
> Since this is an non WG  and informational draft, I do not understan
> why this will be an issue for the IESG, though of course I expect it 
> will
> be an issue in any protocol developed to implement any resulting
> architecture.  I have, however, accepted the comment and have
> added references to the sections where security is discussed.

Avri,

	It is important regularly to remind everyone that this is an IRTF
output, not an IETF output.  That said, the RFC Editor normally wants
a decent Security Considerations section on all RFCs, even if the
document is not standards-track.

	I might be able to help with this if useful.  I've ghost-authored
a number of such sections over the years.

>>
>> 		- You say the architecture MUST be simple enough for
>> 			Radia Perlman to explain in a hour.
>> 			Give us a break!  That is a content-free MUST.
>>
>
> Ans:
>
> Well, I got rid of the capitalized imperative.  The next paragrapgh
> goes on to explain that the architecture must be as simple as
> possible with a merciless weeding of things that are not absolutely
> necessary.
>
> Since this was the product of group A, and the group has since
> dissolved, I did not feel I could remove the requirement.  As I do
> not personally believe it to be content free, I did add an editor's
> note that attempts to explicitly descibe the content of the requirement
> as I understand it.

One might reasonably at least de-personalise the reference and say
something like:

	"The architecture ought to be simple enough for a reasonable
	practitioner in the routing area to explain in an hour."

Ran
rja at extremenetworks.com