Re: [spring] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with DISCUSS)

["Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Terry,

We just updated draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases with more introductory text on FR/Microloop-avoidance and updated the reference to the draft in draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement.

Thanks.
s.



> On Apr 5, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Terry Manderson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Stefano, 
> 
> Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS, when I see a rev of this document
> that addresses these items I will review and likely clear the discuss.
> 
> Cheers
> Terry 
> 
> On 5/04/2016, 4:04 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Terry,
>> 
>> 
>> sorry for coming back late on this. See below:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Terry Manderson
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Discuss
>>> 
>>> 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-problem-statement/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Thanks for putting in the effort in writing this. Firstly, I concur with
>>> Benoit's observation about text taken from the charter and laid in to
>>> the
>>> document verbatim. That tends not to help the reader and a large
>>> assumption is made that the reader understands the concerns of source
>>> based routing for partitioning VPNs, fast re-route, TE, signalling, and
>>> so on.
>> 
>> 
>> yes, the co-authors assume that the reader is already familiar with
>> concepts such as source routing, TE, VPN, Š
>> 
>> Maybe we can add references/pointers to relevant documents.
>> 
>> 
>>> Please consider rewriting the intro and other parts to help with
>>> understanding (for example in 3.2 Fast Reroute; microploop avoidance is
>>> listed as a requirement, however a sensible coverage of microloop
>>> avoidance is not found in the draft, nor in the nearby referenced
>>> spring-resiliency-use-cases).
>> 
>> 
>> Indeed. We will put additional text on microloop-avoidance in
>> draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> This also leaves me scratching my head as
>>> to why we don't see this document and the resiliency-use-cases (and
>>> others) at the same time when they are aligned? Or restructure the
>>> document to be more informative on these facets in the first case.
>>> 
>>> Can the document also be explicit that while the SPRING problem/solution
>>> space needs to be cognisant of autonomous systems that share
>>> policy/interoperate across boundaries the primary port of call is in
>>> regard to the IGP. This will certainly aide in restraining everyone
>>> (esp.
>>> the reader) from trying to boil the 'internet ocean'. (this at least
>>> should be easy to address :)
>> 
>> 
>> I agree. We have significantly revised the security section. It now talks
>> about trust boundaries.
>> 
>> s.
>>