IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 22 January 2014 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 84EB01A00DC for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:01:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 QAxqZAvraQW0 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:01:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD241A00CF for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:01:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u57so410891wes.0 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:01:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=l9KnD9oiXc2C9tdGwWAq9USDkPoS2GR5x3YPLMrkinc=; b=pUM29iPXdEgRUtNm7To3CpolaVunSS7hmMcQzvggOJ0fzJSRMN0nwT79ppy4t5PQQ3 CCPn6OVpllpHoWRIooMs411B8/Iq/D+alp82WCrq+eQvPdHlAlwIfryeqzdCbLDVHTWA FZcGwYL9w2+kBcR2tST2lsidgjmfLZCYvveq+Y4Icc+QKKqaTe79RY3khHGYamRBpANj AkYXXVN01GU+PYvvE9akcd/wA5jeq5PcJJCM7zCY2RYn/Lbo/BuqiTZ73nRzWAQeugQR sC7PmSdg8ZqEvL3h/38K1WwuA7WF41phjWp8srS8Bk4s3KxALSXhQ8C6/s6BIEu9ZSur R1Ag==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.181.13.165 with SMTP id ez5mr20236454wid.56.1390402909124; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:01:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.105.132 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:01:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52DFB2D9.7030300@cisco.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>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:01:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW6ACt95BwkFQoLPU=3d=cQ_bZAYfnuuM3OzbVahXUWww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 15:01:51 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email