IETF Logo Mail Archive

[RTG-DIR]Re: RtgDir Review for draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 28 May 2024 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D059C151066; Tue, 28 May 2024 13:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.093
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 98DoYYELm4VU; Tue, 28 May 2024 13:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28EC5C14F5F5; Tue, 28 May 2024 13:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (vs4.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.122]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 44SKcYIq023594; Tue, 28 May 2024 21:38:34 +0100
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B134604A; Tue, 28 May 2024 21:38:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C93E46043; Tue, 28 May 2024 21:38:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs4.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 28 May 2024 21:38:34 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (82-69-109-75.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.109.75]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 44SKcXpl031909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 May 2024 21:38:33 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Tony Przygienda' <tonysietf@gmail.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing.all@ietf.org
References: <CA+wi2hOj__U-6ifR27fVet6LBwi5dU9P2UZhbUFeYgDT7Su4Xg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+wi2hOj__U-6ifR27fVet6LBwi5dU9P2UZhbUFeYgDT7Su4Xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 21:38:33 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <045601dab13f$021e09f0$065a1dd0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0457_01DAB147.63E2C010"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQDoNNVzW8i7PHLgCj2qGXRNrY26NLOSDuqw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 82.69.109.75
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type; s=20221128; bh=VmGiCOnm4QJwCS/4RdMXU /p78BDpRFH+3mwvhMyReXg=; b=vg6zuK78uFTQEpkhOZ7m9ZfHhao7KHuDAtpIi lngP7pUJHjd5vxf17KWVb7tilYhVT0TUZSCyzTjFnJSUi43nKdaMozsvB+21PXSp 7yijDNmSs7xRWC/vtZhew2yNqrPFkqU8qOihkXEMWkXtVj2zy8rbDy8h+x7vj5dB DfLSwAbLfZhV+CErlHOc74kNpMC+1xx48Yox8Q7o7easqoJERb7aG+332PU+oAhq /eCiY0hfxVDHaqa3eyr8hR74lKdr8i6D3n2KKYkQTDXe/YhIvPPsGpnAylVp8zP5 GBibo7hnM/rm4IXr7fcN/NA5ZQjykvUi1Rd93j6REgegJmE+Q==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-28352.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.254-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--17.254-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-28352.003
X-TMASE-Result: 10--17.254000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: WMT2WRIkHPPxIbpQ8BhdbI61Z+HJnvsOy2tHgDROzc90Tsch72XSbFge 28plyRJH5di1+VdlP9al+fxzcjwAMchblrt58TvtxrDvUMltogQejl8XURi8fP0TP/kikeqnEPj q/86Sm9qd8QUoG1JecqZVO6hDKsBCBoAm5BFY2o8LwUwfdPoXvoGIsNQKxyHbZccjQ5aXQKpVcX P3eMLfFwZh0gUbVqIreOOFadxwIcREXwnTCGfm3f0peXGEEBlvDvKSaIxu6kpXG3yI9k2vbCpYA mrFxIhiLkTtdgQKNN5Se6rq1H4K1f+z7xWvCPyPzH6d90mb4+KOVGny5q72hiPS9JdK3W4/tAgK 4TtXrP1IhPZ2WssQaT20AuSjXEAlRS5eRZNKL9HcFkTd9CjuT/es4f8X5NWomCNknSXswf8PY7E c0tWek/5KoIbFHwDBFABeLgZr0ZEfE8yM4pjsD4MbH85DUZXyAzmRhRrMoRWw7M6dyuYKgwKmAR N5PTKc
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Message-ID-Hash: WTRDL5RAYVEHJOLKFBHMMIDZC4PN3CLW
X-Message-ID-Hash: WTRDL5RAYVEHJOLKFBHMMIDZC4PN3CLW
X-MailFrom: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: [RTG-DIR]Re: RtgDir Review for draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/FTzFyeN3Mz1uS9RoJQfNgAB4HO4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Tony,

 

Thanks for taking the time.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.

Document:  draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing
Reviewer: Tony Przygienda
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:

In short, the draft has been a pleasure to read. It is well structured, informative and carefully laid out presenting actually a good overview of the whole network slicing & service modelling jungle of drafts so overall, time well spent for me ;-) 

[AF] Glad it was a rich experience for you.

Comments:

Only thing to remark is that the draft references a lot in-flight drafts in section 4 and given that, after publication the ground may move and it may lose relevance to an extent. I do not consider that likely. 

[AF] Yeah. We limited ourself to RFCs and WG I-Ds. So they should be a bit more stable.

Major Issues:

None

Minor Issues:None

Nits:

Polished, easy on the eye language, nothing sprung out.

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status