Re: [Anima] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with COMMENT)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Warren,

Will fix all of those.

As for "as robust as possible", you are correct that it's an empty
phrase. I will change it to "it is essential that every implementation
continues to operate in adverse conditions." While I agree that this
should apply to everything, even the British Airways checkin system,
it does seem of special importance for autonomics.

Regards
   Brian

On 23/05/2017 02:56, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-grasp/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Firstly, thank you for addressing Joel's OpsDir review.
> As others have noted, this is a long document :-) I think that, in spite
> of this, it is very well written.... 
> 
> These comments were written against v-11, but I think are still
> applicable to -12.
> 
> 
> Section 2.1, D1:
> "... the protocol can represent and discover any kind of
>    technical objective ..." While the document *does* say that readers
> should be familiar with RFC7575, RFC7576, and
> I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model, I think it would still be helpful to
> (briefly) describe an objective here, or simply mention that "technical
> objective" is a term of art and point to the Terminology section (or Sec.
> 3.10). When I initially read this it sounded incredibly broad, once I
> found the Terminology section it all made more sense...
> 
> 
> S2.2.  Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation Capability
> 
>    "SN5. 
>    ...
>    It follows that the protocol’s resource requirements must be
> appropriate for any device that would otherwise need human intervention."
> 
> 
> I found this sentence confusing / hard to parse. I *think* that you are
> saying that the protocol should not require so many resources that it
> cannot be deployed on devices (and so humans would still need to manually
> manage them)?
> If so, I think that this could be clearer, but, unfortunately I cannot
> provide better text...
> 
> 3.2.  High Level Deployment Model
> "A more common model is expected to be a multi-purpose device capable of
> containing several ASAs."
> I'm sure you are right... but for a reader new to the topic this is not
> obvious (nor clear) - would it be possible to provide some sort of
> examples of such devices (or brief description of why a more common model
> would have several ASAs?) E.g: "multi-purpose device capable of
> containing several ASAs (such as a router or large switch)" (or
> whatever...)
> 
> 
> "..it is essential that every implementation is as robust as possible."
>  --  this sounds suspiciously like "Don't write bad code...".  What is
> the purpose if this statement? Do you think that it will somehow make
> people write better / more robust code? If so, shouldn't this be in our
> standard boilerplate? This whole paragraph feels like it is not
> actionable / is something that all code for all implementations of
> everything should follow... (I have a horrible feeling that I'm heading
> off on a soapbox rant / that this is a pet-peeve...)
> 
> 
>