[spring] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09: (with COMMENT)
Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com> Thu, 14 December 2017 14:38 UTC
Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietf.org
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4224B1201F2; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:38:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, spring-chairs@ietf.org, bruno.decraene@orange.com, spring@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.67.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151326229226.6146.10262271999408029894.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:38:12 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/7t4WYm102SmXGdTyDZr8JLrTvAg>
Subject: [spring] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:38:12 -0000
Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Substantive Comments: General: I consider Informational status as appropriate. I found the draft title "oam-usecase" a bit misleading as the document is specifically about a centralized OAM system, but the document title is accurate so I'm ok as the draft title will not be visible once an RFC. "Framework and use cases" would of been more appropriate (to me). Because of the draft title, I found the document a bit confusing initially as I was not sure if "system" was used in the BFD sense e.g. a functional component or as hinted at initially, and as Section 4, Fig. 1 shows, a physically separate "system". Suggest it would help the reader to more clearly say this in the Abstract (the rtgdir reviewer also hinted at this). I'm not sure why the choice was to specifically specify a physically separate system? Why not as a functional component with a use case as being physically separate? And considering the document is scoped to a physically separate system, there is not much information on what is needed to support a physical separation (other AD comments). I'd suggest strongly to do a simple rewording to scope as a functional component. SDN architectures are based on functional components as everyone has different ideas on the physical location of a component and "functional" provides a flexibility. Suggest looking at RFC5623 on the VNTM component. Nits: I found multiple sentences lacked clarity/grammar. Ben noted several. Will depend if restructure to not preclude as a functional component. The first sentence of the abstract could be improved: a path monitoring/s/an MPLS path monitoring
- [spring] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft… Deborah Brungard
- Re: [spring] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on d… Ruediger.Geib
- Re: [spring] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on d… Ruediger.Geib