IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-04

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 22 January 2014 15:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E10A1A0116 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:16:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 7aiYg95TLrob for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:16:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3DA1A00CF for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:16:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1159; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390403767; x=1391613367; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1uDn2m+MoBab5vGEfGFLYJNzmnSemOHoeDy7+XTxb7c=; b=I38PzfISsMQ++X9uGsfgGcimBIDOwVPWwbI5RUBpHf39hTXSIYpgUyNi 8XalknZBXZ2suJoFVp7l4hBAwPXcUW3AgtLkF0unazyVnAt/9q+pqxKoW 7gvdeYEGgerX8QlcAg7vz8A8AaXFTul578V24hRoVg722yg2rwOpUyJ9Z A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFAJPf31KQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABagwuEDLhggRIWdIIlAQEBBCMVQAEQCxgCAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYNAQUCAQGIAaYVnDUXgSmNUweCb4FJAQOYIoZHi1GDLjs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,700,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="3349445"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2014 15:16:05 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0MFG5k9022914; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:16:05 GMT
Message-ID: <52DFE0B5.7010206@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:16:05 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnXj07R25LQ64-=bha6iFpabgAt=xsRP0+5A20wnF8JUdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJc3aaPKeuPicy_X+MG-T-XyZ+YdONphhkp1Ow666jq9_ubzew@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWWLHKV7NZX4dZJM-YpRg4doSPKLRMD43sC9t23Pbx-VQ@mail.gmail.com> <52DFB2D9.7030300@cisco.com> <CABkgnnW6ACt95BwkFQoLPU=3d=cQ_bZAYfnuuM3OzbVahXUWww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnW6ACt95BwkFQoLPU=3d=cQ_bZAYfnuuM3OzbVahXUWww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment.all@tools.ietf.org, Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-04
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:16:08 -0000

On 22/01/2014 16:01, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 22 January 2014 13:00, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Is your concern that  the sentence "IPv6 is considered the strategic answer"
>> in section 2 is not stressed enough?
>
> I think that the text in the second paragraph is slightly more loaded.
>   In particular,
>
>     These issues
>     leave an operator in a precarious position which may lead to the
>     decision to deploy CGN.
>
> The rest of the section uses similarly loaded:
>
>     The ability to replace IPv4-only equipment may be out of the control
>     of the operator, and even when it's in the administrative control, it
>     poses both cost and technical challenges as operators build out
>     massive programs for equipment retirement or upgrade.
>
> "precarious position", "poses both cost and technical challenges", ...
> all arguably true, but not strictly neutral.
Understood.

Victor, can you please improve those sentences, to be more neutral.
Also, you might be stress again in that section:

    This document does not intend to defend the
    merits of CGN.


Regards, Benoit
> .
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email