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

["Dongjie (Jimmy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

That change is fine, while it would be better to reference RFC9543 for the definition of NRP first, then reference draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls for the definition of NRP Policy.

And you may want to use the definition of NRP policy in section 3.5 of draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 11:22 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Tony Li <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; mpls <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-10

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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 9:07 AM
To: Tony Li <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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