Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11

[stefano previdi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

thanks for the comments. See answers below.


> On Nov 11, 2017, at 12:25 AM, Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready
> 
> Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document:  draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11.txt
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review Date: 2017-11-11
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-04
> IESG Telechat date: 2017-12-14
> 
> Summary: Ready
> --------
> 
> Comment:
> --------
> 
> When I reviewed this for Last Call, I had two general concerns:
> 1) Is it useful to publish use cases now, at the end of
> protocol development?


this is an old story and you should probably read the archives of the spring mailing list ;-) 

To give you a summarized version of it, I’d say that yes, it makes sense to have the use-case properly documented. Resiliency is one of the major network operator use-case in segment routing networks and vendors are required to provide solutions for it. Having a document which can be pointed to and that describes the typical use case and requirements helps the reader in understanding how the component of the SR architecture address these requirements.


> 2) The AD review dated 2017-04-20 pointed out that the
> document should be historically consistent.
> 
> I'm going to assume that since the AD is bringing the draft
> to the IESG, he's now happy on these two points.

> 
> Minor issue:
> ------------
> 
> I originally commented that Section 3 doesn't actually mention
> any specific requirements for Spring. In conversation with
> Stefano:
> 
>>> Right, but you don't state any *requirements* for SPRING that result from this case,
>>> except the very general statement before section 3.1. Maybe that does translate
>>> into specific requirements, but I don't see how.
> 
>> the generic requirement is the ability to instantiate source routed paths.
>> These source routed paths, in the framework of this draft, are for LFAs.
> 
> I still think that Section 3 doesn't identify this requirement.
> Maybe it's obvious to one skilled in the art, however. So
> I'm going to say "Ready”.


Thanks.
s.


> 
>