Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap

From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke@cisco.com>
Sent: 18 May 2022 14:24

On 5/18/22 06:16, tom petch wrote:
> From: OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Sent: 17 May 2022 16:48
>
> I am closing the WG LC for this document.  The LC prompted some good
> comments from DIR reviews and a comprehensive review from Adrian which
> led to a TEAS cross-review.
>
> The biggest discussion came between Tom P and the WG/authors on the
> definition of what a SAP is in the vein of this doc.   While some of his
> suggestions have made it into the latest revision of the document, I am
> not certain this discussion has been fully resolved.
>
> The last email I saw was
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/D-z_rGqFl8V47fHlAkwSqiOxEDk/.
> Is this resolved?
>
> <tp>
> well, look at Mach Chen's Rtgdir review which. for me, covers the same ground and suggests that it is unresolved.  I am perhaps more familiar than Mach with the terminology of the various TEAS documents and so am not quite so puzzled as he is but would say we both share the same puzzlement.

The authors added some clarifying text to the definition of a SAP in the
terminology section based on Mach's and your reviews.  It is a bit more
descriptive (though I certainly would want Attachment Circuit called out
as a term).  Have you reviewed -05 to see if it addresses your concerns?

<tp>
Not yet - I will have a look.

Tom Petch

Joe

>
> I was looking at another I-D by the author, draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm, and was struck by the use of the term 'service' in that I-D which I again was unclear about the meaning of, but in that I-D. it is not such a barrier to my understanding.

>
> Tom Petch
>
> Based on that, we can take -05 forward to the IESG once we get a
> shepherd.  But this point seems important to resolve.
>
> Joe
>
> On 4/22/22 15:07, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
>> Hello, Opsawg.  The last round of comments on this draft have been
>> discussed/resolved, and we'd like to kick off a three-week WG LC for
>> this work.  Please provide any and all feedback on list before the end
>> of the day May 13, 2022.
>>
>> Authors, if you have suggestions for a good shepherd for this document,
>> we'd love to hear them.
>>
>> I have requested reviews from Ops and Routing on this work.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OPSAWG mailing list
>> OPSAWG@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>