MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <172774050692.609015.10426441429452670811@dt-datatracker-7bbd96684-zjf54>
In-Reply-To: 
 <172774050692.609015.10426441429452670811@dt-datatracker-7bbd96684-zjf54>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 17:09:31 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+RyBmWJNKTmwxfvx92_MvoGUdDuoywVaMhXccmwRX3Q0hqPfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006187fe06235f23f6"
Message-ID-Hash: NFCXVGI6X2A6VVBEKNC2DR4H57MGCIJR
CC: ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases.all@ietf.org,
 last-call@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bmpls=5D_Re=3A_Opsdir_last_call_review_of_draft-ietf-mpls-mna-us?=
	=?utf-8?q?ecases-15?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/KJaOMI1qG_93vCO-GcEHCpQa0fg>

--0000000000006187fe06235f23f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Linda,
thank you for your review. Please find my notes below tagged GIM>>.

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 4:55=E2=80=AFPM Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's ongoi=
ng
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors=
.
> Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any
> other
> last-call comments.
>
> Summary:
> I find the intent of this document somewhat unclear. While the Introducti=
on
> states that the purpose is to describe use cases requiring specialized
> forwarding hardware, the use cases in Section 2 primarily reference
> existing
> RFCs or drafts on specific topics.

GIM>> I will note that the Introduction doesn't mention the need for
"specialized forwarding hardware", but "special processing by forwarding
[deployed and developed in the future] hardware":
   This document describes use cases that introduce functions that
   require special processing by forwarding hardware.

> Is this draft intended to serve as a
> collection of RFCs or drafts that involve the use of MNA?

GIM>> Yes, that is the intention of the document to describe how MNA
enables realization of functions, e.g., IOAM, that are not support based on
the existing MPLS architecture.

> Given that each
> referenced RFC and draft already contains a detailed description of the
> issues
> it addresses, why need another RFC to link them all?
>
GIM>> AFAICS, that is the decision reached by the MPLS WG.

>
> My two cents,
> Linda Dunbar
>
>
>

--0000000000006187fe06235f23f6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Linda,<div>thank you =
for your review. Please find my notes below tagged GIM&gt;&gt;.</div><div><=
br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Greg</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 4:55=E2=
=80=AFPM Linda Dunbar via Datatracker &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:noreply@ietf.or=
g">noreply@ietf.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex">Reviewer: Linda Dunbar<br>
Review result: Has Issues<br>
<br>
I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate&#39;s ong=
oing<br>
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.=C2=A0 Thes=
e<br>
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors.<=
br>
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any ot=
her<br>
last-call comments.<br>
<br>
Summary:<br>
I find the intent of this document somewhat unclear. While the Introduction=
<br>
states that the purpose is to describe use cases requiring specialized<br>
forwarding hardware, the use cases in Section 2 primarily reference existin=
g<br>
RFCs or drafts on specific topics. </blockquote><div>GIM&gt;&gt; I will not=
e that the Introduction doesn&#39;t mention the need for &quot;specialized =
forwarding hardware&quot;, but &quot;special processing by forwarding [depl=
oyed and developed in the future] hardware&quot;:</div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0Th=
is document describes use cases that introduce functions that</div><div>=C2=
=A0 =C2=A0require special processing by forwarding hardware.=C2=A0=C2=A0</d=
iv><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bord=
er-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Is this draft intended=
 to serve as a<br>
collection of RFCs or drafts that involve the use of MNA?=C2=A0 </blockquot=
e><div>GIM&gt;&gt; Yes, that is the intention of the document to describe h=
ow MNA enables realization of functions, e.g., IOAM, that are not support b=
ased on the existing MPLS architecture.=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,2=
04,204);padding-left:1ex">Given that each<br>
referenced RFC and draft already contains a detailed description of the iss=
ues<br>
it addresses, why need another RFC to link them all?<br></blockquote><div>G=
IM&gt;&gt; AFAICS, that is the decision reached by the MPLS WG.=C2=A0</div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
My two cents,<br>
Linda Dunbar<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>

--0000000000006187fe06235f23f6--