Re: REVISED Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt> (The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results) to Informational RFC

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Abdussalam,

Many thanks for your review and comments on the draft. I have some answers
inline.

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> The Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
> Date: 05.09.2013
> I-D name: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results
> Received your Request dated 04.09.2013
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The reviewer supports the draft subject to amendments. Overall the
> survey is not easy to be used as source of information related to such
> technology users, but easier as source of information related to
> respondings of companies.
>
> AB> I prefer the title to start as: A Survey of ..........
>

Andy> The draft is reporting the results of the survey, rather than being
the survey, so the title couldn't start as you suggested. A possibility
could be "The Results of a Survey on Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementations", but I think the existing
title is more concise.

Abstract> This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to
> determine implementation trends. The survey and results is presented
> herein.
>
> AB> How did the survey determine implementations related to users (are
> they general known or uknown or chosen by authors...etc). What kind of
> results?
>

Andy> The survey was of service providers deploying pseudowires and VCCV.
The "users", in this case, are service providers.


> AB> the abstract starts interesting but ends making the results not
> clear what it was (good, reasonable, expected, positive, had
> conclusions..etc)?
> AB> The draft states that it has no conclusion, because it is not
> intended for that but to help in knowing results to help in other
> future drafts. However, the abstract mentions that the survey
> conducted to determine (not understood how to determine without
> conclusions or analysis).
>

Andy> It wasn't the job of the people conducting the survey to draw
conclusions from the results, it was for them to report the results so that
the working group could collectively draw conclusions in their ongoing
work. At the time, the WG needed information on which combinations of PW
and VCCV options were actually in use, and the survey was used to collect
that information.


> Introduction>
> In order to assess the best approach to address the observed
> interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit
> feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding
> implementation.  This document presents the survey and the
> information returned by the user community who participated.
>
> AB> the introduction needs to show the importance of the survey, or
> what makes such decision from the WG (i.e. seems like the WG has not
> cover all types of community, not sure)?
> AB> Why did the WG decide the survey by using questionnair?
>

Andy> The part of the Introduction on page 3 provides the background,
rationale, and importance of the survey. We used a questionnaire as that
form of survey is easiest for the respondents and allowed us to use
SurveyMonkey to conduct the survey.


> AB> suggest amending> the document presents the questionnair form
> questions and information returned ......
>

Andy> We could change the sentence to say "This document presents the
survey questionnaire and the information returned by the user community who
participated."


> Sections 1.1 1.2 and 1.3>
> ......questions based on direction of the WG chairs......
> There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity
> requirements in
> Section 3.  The responding companies are listed below in Section 2.1.
>
> AB> Why were thoes methodologies and why that way of quetions chosen
> for this survey? The answer to this is important for the document
> (informational) and future drafts.
>

Andy> While the survey questions were originally suggested by the WG
chairs, they were written by the survey authors and reviewed by the WG
prior to the collection of results. We could add that if you like.


> AB> The reason of the survey's methodology should be mentioned in
> clear section,  as the athors' opinion.
>
> Section 1.2> Form>
> Why the form did not make security consideration related to
> implementations in the form questions? which then may be used in
> security section.
>

Andy> Because security information wasn't the subject of the survey.


> Results section 2>
> AB> are difficult to read or find related to section 1.2.
> AB> Usually the section mixes between what was returned and what was
> given. It is prefered to have two separate sections as 1 (what was
> given including the form), and what was returned as results.
>

The questions are in section 1.2, and the results are in section 2.


> Regards
> AB
>

Thanks again,
Andy