Re: [Actn] New Version Notification for draft-ceccarelli-actn-framework-06.txt

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

Thanks for your comments. I exepct Daniele and other authors who wrote their sections will respond some of your comment, but here's mine (please see in-line).

Best regards,
Young 

-----Original Message-----
From: ACTN [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 6:14 AM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Actn] New Version Notification for draft-ceccarelli-actn-framework-06.txt

Hi All, 

Thanks for the new version. I have some quick comments listed below mostly on the new sections/text. 

~ There should be a bit of description around 'Figure 3: ACTN Control Hierarchy' explaining that this shows some of the possible combinations. The presence of PCE or GMPLS trigger needs some explanation as well. 

YOUNG>> I agree. Sergio may be the right person for this. 

~ We have used the term 'service' to mean multiple things in the document "services offered by service providers", "service functions", "service awareness - delay, jitter", "VM" etc. All of them are valid. We might benefit from a disclaimer in the introduction section itself (similar to text in section 3) as we use the term throughout the document. 

YOUNG>> Good idea. Next revision will take of that. 

~ In Sec 4.2.1, we should highlight what is the benefit of endpoint destination selection done by MDSC instead of CNC? 

YOUNG>> Yes. 

~ In Sec 4.2.2, we should highlight that for some VN applications, just selection of endpoint is not enough, there is a requirement for fulfillment of certain VNF. MDSC should take that into consideration while making the endpoint selection. 

YOUNG>> Agree. 

~ I am not sure of the difference between 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, I think we can merge them? 

YOUNG>> Good point. I think the main difference is 4.2.2 talks about the Customers being the initiator of certain VNFs associated with their VN request including the location of such VNFs (e.g., Data Centers) while 4.2.3 talks about a different case where the location of VNFs are not known to the customers and providers will provide this function as part of their operation. But both can be explained in the same section. 

~ In Sec 5.1, I agree that VN Topology query is [new], but as an interface requirement is it really that different from Path query, and if yes maybe we should highlight that or make it [ext]. 

YOUNG>> This is subtle. We can demote it to [ext] from [new], but there is some info/data model difference between VN topology query and path query. For instances, if VN topology query were to ask specific granularity with the endpoint information, this will be new aspect path query does not normally have.

~ In Sec 5.2, requirement 1, I am not sure how PCEP/Yang can be extended for this? 

YOUNG>> Actually, you’re right, this may be a new item for ACTN. Is that what you are thinking? 

~ We should highlight that most of the IETF Yang work is focused on the NE, some augmentation work needs to be done so that they might be applied to controller (whole domain or VN)

YOUNG>> Great point, do you think we may need a new semantic change in YANG? 


Editorial Nits: 
o Section 4: Having reference instead of draft names would be a good idea. 

YOUNG>> Good idea. Will do. 

Ohh and Happy New Year!

Regards,
Dhruv



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ACTN [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Daniele
> Ceccarelli
> Sent: 24 December 2014 00:49
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Actn] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ceccarelli-actn-
> framework-06.txt
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We have updated the ACTN framework (v.6):
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ceccarelli-actn-framework/.
> If you don't feel like reading the whole 47 pages from the beginning
> think you might be interested in the new sections from 4.2 on and 5.
> 
> Major updates include the interface requirements in Section 5.1 (CMI)
> and 5.2 (MPI) and Section 4.2 (We have added one more Application
> figure for a ACTN, See section 4.2.3).
> Peter’s comments on the IDINIT have also been addressed.
> 
> Many thanks and Merry Christmas
> Daniele and the authors
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: martedì 23 dicembre 2014 17:11
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Luyuan Fang; Young Lee; Daniel King; Luyuan
> Fang; Daniele Ceccarelli; Daniel King; Young Lee; Diego R. Lopez; Diego
> Lopez; Sergio Belotti; Sergio Belotti
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ceccarelli-actn-framework-
> 06.txt
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-ceccarelli-actn-framework-06.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Young Lee and posted to the IETF
> repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-ceccarelli-actn-framework
> Revision:	06
> Title:		Framework for Abstraction and Control of Transport
> Networks
> Document date:	2014-12-23
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		47
> URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ceccarelli-
> actn-framework-06.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ceccarelli-actn-
> framework/
> Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ceccarelli-actn-
> framework-06
> Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ceccarelli-actn-
> framework-06
> 
> Abstract:
>    This draft provides a framework for abstraction and control of
>    transport networks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ACTN mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/actn
_______________________________________________
ACTN mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/actn