[L2sm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-09: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 04 April 2018 02:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: l2sm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF669120725; Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:18:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model@ietf.org, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, l2sm-chairs@ietf.org, adrian@olddog.co.uk, l2sm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.77.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152280833284.24011.15735079187669210549.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:18:52 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/1K6_G6QIJa37yLhSOILebOeFNtA>
Subject: [L2sm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: l2sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "The Layer Two Virtual Private Network Service Model \(L2SM\)" <l2sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l2sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 02:18:53 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-09: 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:


Just a few editorial comments:

Abstract: The abstract seems overly long and detailed. In particular, the 2nd
paragraph is not very meaningful without the elaborations later in the body of
the document. It should probably be removed from the abstract, or at least
reduced to the last two sentences.

§1: Paragraph 1 needs elaboration. Paragraph 4 provides that elaboration. I
suggest keeping them together rather than separate them with other paragraphs
that are only loosely related.  (If it were me, I would remove all but the
first sentence of the first paragraph to just before paragraph 4.)

§3.1, 2nd bullet s/psedowires/pseudowires  (2 times)

§4: This section would benefit from a definition (or citation to a definition)
of "orchestration", especially to distinguish between "service orchestration"
and "network orchestration". (It may be that the target audience all knows the
terms, but it's been my experience that everyone thinks they know what
"orchestration" means, but they often do not agree on the definition. )