[Openv6] Comments on draft-karagiannis-aponf-problem-statement-02

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

The APONF problem statement is definitely shaping up, although I think 
there are still some extraneous elements that were pasted in from the 
draft charter but don't really belong in the draft. I complained about 
the presence of architectural descriptions in earlier versions, but I 
suggest a summary figure showing the high-level architecture would be 
helpful in the description of the different aspects of total problem as 
they relate to different WGs. Here is the figure I have in mind, based 
on my reading of the problem statement:

                     ---------------
                     |  End user   |
                     | application |
                     ---------------
                            |
                            |
                            |
                  AECON-developed interface
                    SFC-developed model
                   ---------------------
                   | Network management |
                   |   application      |
                   ----------------------
                            |
                            |     APONF
                            |   transport
                            |
                            | (SFC-developed
                            |  templates?)
                            |
                   ----------------------
                   | Network management |
                   |      control       |
                   | ... and then a     |
                   | miracle happens :) |
                   |   APONF-developed  |
                   |     mapping?       |
                   ----------------------
                            |
                            |
                   To individual devices

My suggestion is to have this at the end of the introduction and get rid 
of Section 5, which just repeats the same information.

I like the way the draft draws conclusions from the use cases and 
reflects them in the requirements. I will give that section closer 
scrutiny in a later E-mail.

Given that the draft draws attention to GIST as a candidate protocol, it 
would be good to include text explaining why this protocol in particular 
seems to be a good fit to the requirements.

Tom Taylor