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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

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.)

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.)

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.)

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?

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)"?

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

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)
>