[nwcrg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs-08: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 12 January 2022 17:37 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: nwcrg@irtf.org
Delivered-To: nwcrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE16D3A162D; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:37:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IRSG <irsg@irtf.org>
Cc: draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs@ietf.org, nwcrg-chairs@ietf.org, nwcrg@irtf.org, Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>, marie@mjmontpetit.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.42.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <164200902482.31731.5226113400873942011@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:37:04 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nwcrg/jv236D2iybXWfLpAazn2_K87N2U>
Subject: [nwcrg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: nwcrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IRTF Network Coding Research Group discussion list <nwcrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nwcrg>, <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nwcrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nwcrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nwcrg>, <mailto:nwcrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 17:37:05 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs-08: 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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- One high level comment (which isn't anything that would prevent publishing or would actually need to be addressed before publishing): For me the motivation why NC is specifically beneficial for ICN is not clear. It rather seems to me that NC would be kind of equally beneficial to any other kind of network interaction scheme. Section 6 even notes that a base principe in ICN is that a "forwarder or producer cannot initiatively inject unrequested data" which seems actually to make the application of NC (where N stands for network) quite complicated. The approaches and consideration presented are fine and make sense, I'm just saying the synergy of specifically combining these two techniques is less clear to me. One editorial point: For the ICN terminology you refer to RFC8793. For NC you have a rather lengthly list with terms which not necessarily are all used. Wouldn't it make sense to similarly refer to RFC8406 instead? Nits: - sec 7.2: "would be effective, an effective deployment approach" -> "would be an effective deployment approach"? - Maybe spell out CS on first occurrence.
- [nwcrg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-i… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker