Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-06

Hi David, On October 6, 2015 at 00:37:42, Black, David (david.bl...@emc.com) wrote: > > As an OPS-Dir member, I'm concerned by the above RFC 5706 answers, > and in particular treating all operational issues as vendor- > and/or > operator-specific. One possible alternative would be to scope >

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-06

Hi David, Thanks for your careful review. Regarding you major issue: > Major issues: > > [1] Operational considerations: There appears to be more than enough > enabled by this draft to wreak serious operational havoc, but the draft > seems to sidestep all operational topics, primaril

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-06

Rob, > Given that we are really selecting candidates from within a set of paths that > have already been selected by OSPF as valid, and usable - then I’m not sure > that I can understand the logic behind this sentence from your review: "There > appears to be more than enough enabled by this draft

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06

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

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06 (resend)

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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-02

Hi, Matt. Thanks for the responses. Some comments in line. Regards, Elwyn On 02/10/2015 20:25, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote: Elwyn, Thanks for the review, and apologies for the delay in replying. Responses to your concerns inline. I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The Gen

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-06

On October 6, 2015 at 17:46:41, Black, David (david.bl...@emc.com) wrote: > Rob, > > > Given that we are really selecting candidates from within a set of paths > > that > > have already been selected by OSPF as valid, and usable - then I’m not sure > > that I can understand the logic behind thi

[Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02

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

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-06

Hi Bruno, Thank you for your informative response. None of that material is in the draft, and as I did not intend to criticize routing tags in general, I'd like to pursue your suggestion of adding text to put these new tags in context ... Would it be reasonable to add some sort of "Operational C

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-06

Rob, I think something needs to be said on use of tags for preference in route selection vs. prohibition on use of routes, e.g., as Section 4.5 starts out with a discussion of preference and then supplies two example policies that are prohibitions. While Section 4.5 appears to need some attentio