[mpls] Re: Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-10

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jie,
I've missed it, thank you for catching and pointing it out to me. Please
check the proposed update:
OLD TEXT:
   [RFC9543] also defines a
   Network Resource Partition (NRP) Policy as a policy construct that
   enables the instantiation of mechanisms to support one or more
   network slice services.
NEW TEXT:
   [I-D.ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls]
   defines a Network Resource Partition (NRP) Policy as a policy
   construct that enables the instantiation of mechanisms to support one
   or more network slice services.

I hope that addresses your concern.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:16 AM Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your efforts in improving this document.
>
>
>
> At a quick glance I found one nit about reference. I raised this in my
> last review comments, it seems it was missed.
>
>
>
> Section 2.3 says:
>
>
>
>     [RFC9543] also defines a Network Resource Partition (NRP) Policy as a
> policy construct that enables the instantiation of mechanisms to support
> one or more network slice services.
>
>
>
> Per our discussion on the list, RFC 9543 provides the definition of NRP,
> not the definition of NRP Policy.
>
>
>
> Thus you can either change the text in section 2.3 to the definition of
> NRP in RFC 9543, or change the reference to draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls. To
> me the former approach would be better.
>
>
>
>
>
> FYI below is the discussion we had about this reference issue:
>
> GIM>> Section 7.1 of RFC 9543 defines NRP as:
>
>  An NRP is a subset of the buffer/queuing/scheduling resources and
> associated policies on each of a connected set of links in the underlay
> network (for example, as achieved in [RESOURCE-AWARE-SEGMENTS]).
>
>  [Jie] Yes, but that is the definition of NRP, which is different from the
> definition of “NRP Policy”.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 11, 2024 9:07 AM
> *To:* Tony Li <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; mpls <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [mpls] Re: Document shepherd review of
> draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-10
>
>
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful consideration. I've asked for
> help and prepared a new version based on the feedback I received. Please
> find attached the new working version and the diff highlighting updates,
> which include fixed typos and editorial changes to improve the readability
> of the document.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 5:37 PM Tony Li <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> [WG chair hat: on]
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have completed the document shepherd review of your document and have
> found no significant issues.
>
> The document has several editorial issues that could be addressed. While
> these do not affect the technical status of the document, these would
> improve its quality and will hasten the process when it gets to the RFC
> Editor. I’m well aware that developing a technical document in a non-native
> language is extremely challenging, so I would like to recommend that you
> enlist the aid of a professional Technical Writer or a native English
> speaker within your own organizations and ask that they make a full pass
> through the document for correctness, clarity, and flow. This step is
> optional.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>