Re: [Cats] CATS WG Adoption poll for draft-ldbc-cats-framework

[[e-mail]]

Hi Joel, 

Thanks for the comments. 

Some changes to address most of them can be seen at [1].

Please see more inline.

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://boucadair.github.io/CATS-framework/draft-ldbc-cats-framework.txt&url_2=https://boucadair.github.io/CATS-framework/Joel-comments/draft-ldbc-cats-framework.txt

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : dimanche 25 février 2024 21:34
> À : 'cats' <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [Cats] CATS WG Adoption poll for draft-ldbc-cats-framework
> 
> I have reread the draft, and in my opinion it is ready for WG
> adoption. The following minor comments can be considered after
> adoption.
> 
> In the description of the CATS Service Metric Agent (C-SMA) it may
> make sense to note that it could be colocated with the Service Contact
> Instance.  (I presume that we are not trying to prohibit that.)
> 

[Med] No. Reworded to make that clear.

> Section 3.4.7 uses the notation IP/MPLS.  The use of "/" is ambiguous
> as to whether it means "and", "or", or both in this context.  A
> slightly different use of the slash would be "IP and/or MPLS" which I
> believe would be clearer. (I believe that phrasing also allows for
> cases such as
> SRv6 infrastructure, so I do not think we need to get more elaborate
> in the wording.)
> 

[Med] OK.

> Should secction 4.4 on Sevice Access Processing note that per the4
> CATS charter it is not anticipated at this time that solutions will
> mandate specific algorithms for the processing? (E.g. it is not merely
> out of scope for this document, but out of scope for current solution
> proposals.)
> 

[Med] At least the document does not have to assume/specify one. After rereading the text, I think that keeping the sentence right before the one you quoted is sufficient to convey the current intent.

> I think that the Security Considerations ection (5) should mention
> that CATS protocols MAY (or maybe MUST?) include support for
> encryption to address the disclosure risk that is described? This may
> in turn results in a slight rewording of the privacy considerations
> section?
> 

[Med] I see your point. We will need to better document this once we have a clear theory of operations. There are some areas that we need to clarify first, how the service is made known to the forwarders, interaction with service packet encryption, etc. See, for example, https://github.com/boucadair/CATS-framework/issues/63.

> Nit:
> 
>      Would it be helpful for the second paragraph of section 3.4.3 on
> the C-NMA to menion "may also participate directly in IGP(s)"?
> 

[Med] Added some IGP examples.

>      In section 3.6, the term "privileged option" is used.  I believe
> the meaning is better conveyed by "preferred option".
> 

[Med] OK.

> Yours,
> 
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> On 2/23/2024 11:44 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Hi CATS,
> >
> > We have had IPR disclosure responses from all authors and
> contributors.
> > All but one have indicated "no IPR", with the remaining one stating
> > that there is IPR, but the company is doing a detailed analysis
> before
> > filing a disclosure.
> >
> > The working group has a milestone for "Adopt the CATS Framework and
> > Architecture document"
> >
> > So, we are going to start a two week adoption poll for the draft.
> This
> > will end on 9th March at 9am GMT.
> >
> > Please state your opinions on whether or not this document should be
> > adopted. Authors and Contributors are also welcome to state their
> opinions.
> > Recall that the document does not have to be perfect at this point:
> we
> > are looking for a starting point that can be taken up by the WG and
> > edited until it is complete and ready.
> >
> > A simple yes or no is helpful, but doesn't carry much weight.
> >
> > So, if "yes":
> > - have you reviewed the document?
> > - do you have any comments or editorial suggestions?
> > - do you think this is the right document to meet the milestone?
> > - why do you think this is a good document?
> >
> > And, if "no":
> > - what are your concerns?
> > - what is your proposal to meet the milestone?
> >
> > If the current IPR situation is a significant concern to you, you
> are
> > welcome to state that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian (for the chairs)
> >
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.