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

[Terry Manderson <[e-mail]>]

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.
>