Re: [CCAMP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-06: (with COMMENT)

"Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com> Mon, 28 May 2018 07:22 UTC

Return-Path: <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA911126B6D; Mon, 28 May 2018 00:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hsVd_etMYOpT; Mon, 28 May 2018 00:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89F7F124F57; Mon, 28 May 2018 00:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7F388988ED846; Mon, 28 May 2018 08:22:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.43) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Mon, 28 May 2018 08:22:14 +0100
Received: from DGGEMA501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.79]) by DGGEMA402-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.43]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Mon, 28 May 2018 15:22:07 +0800
From: "Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework@ietf.org>, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, "daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-06: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHT8ph5nVZ+dfZzqk+cfYt2Sa4kzqREhiSA
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 07:22:07 +0000
Message-ID: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCF0194CD@DGGEMA501-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <152708147191.26780.6549547106343200107.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <152708147191.26780.6549547106343200107.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.169.30.234]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCF0194CDDGGEMA501MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/AEcx6crs-LUNKhTPxgiIhadpp7U>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 07:22:34 -0000

Hi Benjamin,



Thanks for the comments, and sorry for the late response.

Please see reply inline in blue.



BR,

Amy

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@mit.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 9:18 PM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework@ietf.org; Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com; ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-06: (with COMMENT)



Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for

draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-06: 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-ccamp-microwave-framework/







----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



I have a similar sentiment to Mirja, in that this document seems to be describing the result of WG deliberations and the conclusions that have been reached as to the path for future work.  As such, it's unclear that there is lasting technical value to the Internet Community from publication as an RFC (as opposed to remaining as a WG-internal document until the publication of the associated follow-up work).  That said, I am not making this a blocking objection.



I'm happy to see the secdir thread coming to a conclusion about SDN vs. NMS -- thanks for working to clear that up.



Otherwise, I just have some grammatical/style nits that I noted while reading.



Is there any need to disambiguate "Wireless carrier" (i.e., a type of

company) vs. "carrier frequency"?  (I could certainly see an argument for "no", given the target audience.)

[Amy] Maybe not necessary. Carrier is a widely used term in wireless technology.



Sections 1 and 2 differ about the lower bound for "microwave radio"

spectrum (1GHz vs. 1.4 GHz).
[Amy] Thanks for pointing it out. Should be 1.4GHz.



Section 2



   [...] Using multi-carrier systems operating in frequency bands

   with wider channels, the technology will be capable of providing

   capacities up 100 Gbps.



nit: "capacities of up to"
[Amy] will fix it.



Section 3.2



   [...] Hence, an

   open and standardized node management interface are required in a

   multi-vendor environment.  Such standardized interface enables a

   unified management and configuration of nodes from different vendors

   by a common set of applications.



nit: singular/plural disagreement between "an" and "are"; also between "such" (vs. "such a") and "interface enables" (vs.

"interfaces enable")
[Amy] will fix it, see below:
   Hence, an
   open and standardized node management interface is required in a
   multi-vendor environment.  Such a standardized interface enables a
   unified management and configuration of nodes from different vendors
   by a common set of applications.





   On top of SDN applications to configure, manage and control the nodes

   and their associated transport interfaces including the L2 Ethernet

   and L3 IP interfaces as well as the radio interfaces, there are also

   a large variety of other more advanced SDN applications that can be

   exploited and/or developed.



FYI, the word "exploited" has connotations (in some circles) of a malicious hack, i.e., that such an application has vulnerabilities that are exploited for nefarious purposes.  (So far as I know, "utilized" does not.)
[Amy] Thanks for suggestion, will change to "utilized”.



The subsections in Section 4 read, stylistically, as if they are bullet points under the heading of "use cases".  I wonder if there would be benefit from adding some generic text about "This use case involves ..." to them.
[Amy] How about add the following sentence to the end of first paragraph in section 4:
The use cases involves configuration management, inventory, status and statistics, performance management, fault management, troubleshooting and rout cause analysis.



nit: In Section 6.1, "data plane technology specific" is used (multiple

times) as a compound adjective, which requires some hyphenation.  (I believe different style guides have conflicting recommendations, but at least a hyphen in "technology-specific" is generally accepted.)
[Amy] will use "technology-specific".