Re: [Idr] AD review and progression of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03

"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Tue, 31 March 2015 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EEF51ACE8D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 zkYXPqpgfBZ5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdcipgw01.twcable.com (cdcipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.91.110]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956901ACE86 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.15
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,503,1422939600"; d="scan'208,217";a="278420708"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.15]) by cdcipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 31 Mar 2015 15:58:39 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS10.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.40]) by PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.15]) with mapi; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:06:07 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 16:06:06 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Idr] AD review and progression of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03
Thread-Index: AdBr7h8NrZCPth7vQ42yacPuv59D9g==
Message-ID: <D1406DA9.4BB35%wesley.george@twcable.com>
References: <CAG4d1rcCHcogajQjWtLAd7gu-ZtNUGQaPDyRd14YEkh1K4C2KQ@mail.gmail.com> <D0F944AD.42355%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CAG4d1reECyzk6zJ-P-S49cygKbae=mkDLMFkuq0OJPiHWK=ahg@mail.gmail.com> <D10B54CA.979C5%aretana@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D10B54CA.979C5%aretana@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.8.150116
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1406DA94BB35wesleygeorgetwcablecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qEHw95vjSn5paopuvpZjA06UcQk>
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD review and progression of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:06:12 -0000

Going through some of the specific items raised below, and wanted to respond to a couple, snipped where appropriate.

Thanks,

Wes


From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com<mailto:aretana@cisco.com>>
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:58 AM
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com<mailto:wesley.george@twcable.com>>
Cc: Idr <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-idr-as-migration@tools.ietf.org>>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD review and progression of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03


 *   The use case Fig 1 and2, show customers C and D..but later, when explaining the features, CE-A and CE-B are used instead.  To make it easier to follow the same names would be nice.

WG] the –A and –B designators were set the way they were after Thomas Morin's review, with the idea that they coincide with the ISP that they're part of (PE/CE A are in ISP A pre-migration, PE/CE-B are in ISP B pre-migration). This is all pretty much a personal preference (what makes the most sense for you), so I'm not inclined to change it again unless someone comes up with something that is more universally obvious.

 *   In 3.3 (last paragraph) the authors talk about the CLI implementation..  As they wrote: “..command syntax is an implementation detail beyond the scope of this document”.  Stay out of it.

WG] I disagree. This may be resolved in the way that we restructure the document to reduce the vendor-specific stuff, but as an operator who actually needs to be able to use this implementation, I think that the guidance in that section is useful – if you're going to integrate the commands together, give me the flexibility to control how it's applied through some switches, or give me separate commands.


________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.