Re: [Roll] [draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension] Section realignment - feedback request

[Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <[e-mail]>]

Hello Dominique and Rahul,

thank you both very much for the review and comments.

I am glad that there is consensus and both of you agree that the section
order should be reversed.
I had no real problem with either order but after reading it many times
maybe I have been desensitized a bit.

So I will make the change, no problem.

Also, since Dominique plans to send more comments, I think I will wait for
those as well so that I can do all the fixes/changes together, hopefully
before the next cutoff date.

Again, thanks a lot for the help.

Best,
Aris


On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:55 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Aris, all,
>
> Thanks for asking.
> I've just reviewed version –06 of the draft, before reading the details of
> the email below.
> It turns out that I was not shocked by the current ordering of sections.
> Probably because I'm already familiar with the topic.
> However, at minimum, a forward reference to Sections 3.1-3.3 would be
> highly useful to newcomers to the draft. Probably right after "There are
> multiple alternative methods of selecting the AP node."
> Reading the details of the email below and thinking about it, I believe
> that bringing sections 3.1-3.4 forward in the document, before Section 3
> "Common Ancestor Objective Function", as Rahul suggests, would make even
> more sense.
> Just be careful to call the CA-Strict, CA-Medium and CA-Relaxed things
> "methods" or "algorithm", not OF. Leave the "OF" term to the actual
> definition (as updates to MRHOF), and refer to the "algorithms" in the OF
> definition.
> This is my personal opinion as a member of the WG.
> More comments on the draft to come in a separate email.
> Best regards,
>
> Dominique
>
> De : Remous-Aris Koutsiamanis <[e-mail]>
> Date : Monday 10 February 2020 15:56
> À : "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
> Dominique Barthel <[e-mail]>, Pascal Thubert <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc : "Georgios Z. Papadopoulos" <[e-mail]>
> Objet : [draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension] Section realignment - feedback
> request
>
> Dear Ines, Dominique, Pascal, and all,
>
> After discussing and amending the draft-ietf-roll-nsa-extension draft
> with feedback from Rahul, a few points still remain which we would like
> some additional feedback on.
>
> I copy the relevant discussion below:
>
> [RJ] Section realignment
> It is better to explain CA Strict/Medium/Relax policies before explaining
> the
> CAOF because as a reader one needs to be familiar with these policies
> before
> understanding the OF.
>
>
> [AK] Thank you for this comment. We had a similar concern as well.
> We are not sure what is best.
> As the text is current structured, we introduce the CAOF first, mentioning
> that different policies are possible and that a selection from the parent
> set must be made.
> We then describe the CAOF in terms of differences from/additions to MRHOF.
> And finally we describe the policies.
> To my mind, the policies are concrete, but they are also just examples, so
> someone can devise different ones.
> In that sense the CAOF is more "fixed" and the policies are more flexible.
> Thus it makes sense to describe the CAOF first.
>
> We are very open to changing the order, but we would like to have some
> additional feedback that the order is problematic as it stands now.
> We would like to hear any suggestions from the group on this topic.
>
>
> [RJ] Ok, lets wait for feedback. I, for one, would like to see
> policies explained first and then an OF using them. I find this the
> only logical way.
>
>
> [RJ] Rahul Jadhav
> [AR] Aris Koutsiamanis
>
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
>
> Best,
> Aris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>