IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [i2rs] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B70412778D; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=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 fMZvqgfWtbO5; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F6B2126CBF; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 07:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.91] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w34EXodH097329 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Apr 2018 09:33:51 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.91]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <D391F9CA-EB5D-4709-81D5-CE5C297F2EB5@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B68E856A-A8E2-4427-907A-4941D6E94CF8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 09:33:49 -0500
In-Reply-To: <005701d3cbbd$186f6f50$494e4df0$@ndzh.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology@ietf.org, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, i2rs@ietf.org
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
References: <152280878408.24068.18282293731508698195.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <005701d3cbbd$186f6f50$494e4df0$@ndzh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/aG9yXfEkSyW_h2_zgXnofTa6G8M>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 14:33:55 -0000

Specifically, Ignas said:

"It is generally true for the context of the overlay but that is not what the document seems to be focusing on. Fabric defines and implements the underlay, not the other way around.”

Note that I specifically did not say I “support the discuss”, only that that I was confused by the terminology issue he mentioned in his discuss.

Thanks,

Ben.


> On Apr 3, 2018, at 9:31 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> wrote:
> 
> Ben:
> 
> Could you unpack the "share concern" on definition of fabric comment a bit?
> 
> Sue
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 10:26 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology@ietf.org; Susan Hares; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com; i2rs@ietf.org
> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: 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-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I share Ignas's concern about the definition of "fabric". Otherwise, I have a couple of nits:
> 
> Abstract: Missing article before "Data Center Network".
> 
> §2: Please use the boilerplate from RFC 8174 rather than rolling your own text to constrain the keywords to their all-caps forms.
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email