[CCAMP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-06: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 23 May 2018 13:17 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C2D12DA6C; Wed, 23 May 2018 06:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
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
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152708147191.26780.6549547106343200107.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 06:17:51 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ZsmKLDJquTG2o7NDu84-VvLCKjU>
Subject: [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
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: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:17:52 -0000
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.) Sections 1 and 2 differ about the lower bound for "microwave radio" spectrum (1GHz vs. 1.4 GHz). 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" 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") 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.) 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. 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.)
- [CCAMP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ie… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [CCAMP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draf… Yemin (Amy)
- Re: [CCAMP] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draf… Benjamin Kaduk