[OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-01
Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Tue, 27 November 2012 00:50 UTC
Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AA821F8641 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:50:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u-OK+qFBuVS1 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:50:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0458F21F8625 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c13so10803771ieb.31 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:50:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus :x-antivirus-status; bh=CFKCNp6GYnLkzOvbNgTFw2TRhKUNKxzonf0sKCsFJlM=; b=D/LmT5RxaCZ0lifc7NjxwYT057Q+TmsoaHkZfr8m/SkbRleDEasPui6Vidq35WxF09 vegg8GwjopcaIbRi8xGWda7B5l26qTGrL0nKEU2Xf/OO0RQYopZqZhafg27R+TVTKelP bKoUMfTNLTx4GiBnpJindJbN2DXksv6YChcJXi6jdltjsTYA2eiv51gyrLmmB66PIAGx CL7CoOrLMExxl0pxDxvt8kPsHHw89liXrllgAhm7jqURy9IwXNI1DaJhSqaiFt8oZEnI cP4wxsieuCGnyrznlbV8BkgcJ6qfinKfxFVCniWjDwFu5hPljUp76/xX9B1zchSwESlw eFJg==
Received: by 10.42.41.142 with SMTP id p14mr12212457ice.36.1353977422516; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-12-215.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.12.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pr7sm339042igc.16.2012.11.26.16.50.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:50:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50B40E4C.9080407@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:50:20 -0500
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 121126-1, 26/11/2012), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: john.cianfarani@rci.rogers.com
Subject: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-01
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:50:23 -0000
This draft is pretty close to ready. I am sending a marked-up copy with editorial nits directly to the authors. I have the following slightly more substantial remarks: 1. At the end of Section 3, just before the Section 3.1 heading, I suggest adding the sentence: "The following subsections expand on some of these points." 2. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 both suggest that flows requiring translation and other flows need separate routing, and Section 3.4 addresses this topic explicitly. Just to reduce the feeling of repetition while tying things together, Section 3.4 might refer to the previous two sections. For example, this sentence could be added to the beginning of Section 2.4: "The two previous sections made the point that for greater efficiency flows requiring translation should be distinguished from other flows. Thus many operators ..." 3. The first paragraph of Section 5.1 reads: "The MPLS/VPN CGN environment has been successfully integrated into real network environments utilizing existing network service delivery mechanisms. It solves many issues related to provider based translation environments, while still being subject to problematic behaviours inherent within NAT." That last phrase, "... while still being subject to problematic behaviours inherent within NAT.", led me to expect mention of unsolved issues but none follows. Could you possibly mention a couple of those issues at the end of Section 5.2 after you list the positive points? Tom Taylor
- [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployme… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-depl… Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-depl… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployme… Tom Taylor