Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-07

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:26:36 +0300

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-07

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date: August 24, 2010

IETF LC End Date: 2010-08-23

IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication where the intended type is
informational.

I have a comment: Reading the document it looks to me that the problem
statement described is wider than just merging of configuration objects as
stated in the abstract. The summary section mentions new protocol while my
thinking was that you just need to define behaviors for merging the
configuration objects.  

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 01:22:13 -0400

Thanks for your review, Roni!

> statement described is wider than just merging of configuration 
> objects as stated in the abstract. The summary section mentions new 
> protocol while my thinking was that you just need to define behaviors 
> for merging the configuration objects. 
>

Other reviewers have commented something around this topic as well. 
Ralph holds a Discuss on the problem being more fundamental than merging 
configuration objects. For instance, overlapping address space on two 
interfaces will lead to fundamental issues in the way communications can 
be established, addresses passed around, etc. I think we need to make a 
change to the document so that it clearly describe the full scope of the 
problem. (Future work in MIF will probably not solve all possible 
problems, and some problems may also be unsolvable.)

Jari