Re: [spring] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 14 December 2017 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF717127369; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:27:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KQEuRI5hWcmX; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:27:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 418E0126D85; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:27:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.99] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id vBENR6r7049288 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:27:07 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.99]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <31E110B3-2E70-4AEC-972B-C0AD7784355B@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C075FF4B-ADCC-48A5-A487-7674A602324A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 17:27:05 -0600
In-Reply-To: <LEXPR01MB00946628BEF7BAD831A50A659C0A0@LEXPR01MB0094.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
Cc: spring@ietf.org, spring-chairs@ietf.org, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, bruno.decraene@orange.com, iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase@ietf.org
To: "<Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>" <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>
References: <151322313115.6120.8756591218425505436.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <LEXPR01MB00946628BEF7BAD831A50A659C0A0@LEXPR01MB0094.DEUPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.DE>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/kawTdv9Wj_H6itEy-zDakAia43w>
Subject: Re: [spring] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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 23:27:10 -0000


> On Dec 14, 2017, at 3:56 AM, Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> thanks for your comments. I started to agree text changes with my co-editor. Takeshi and you commented on the same sentence, which can't be parsed.
> 
>   Your comment: -10 --5th paragraph: I can't parse the last sentence.
>   Takeshi's comment: 3. This sentence "As it is necessary to know that the information is
>      stale is order to follow the instruction, as is the case with for
>      example convergence events that may be ongoing at the time of
>      diagnostic measurement." is not easy to understand for me. I see some typo
>      in this sentence as well.
> 
> This text proposal has been agreed between Carlos and me:
> 
> OLD: As it is necessary to know that the information is
>   stale is order to follow the instruction, as is the case with for
>   example convergence events that may be ongoing at the time of
>   diagnostic measurement.
> 
> NEW: To carry out a desired measurement properly, the PMS must be aware of and respect the actual route changes, convergence events, as well as the assignment of Segment IDs relevant for measurements. At a minimum, the PMS must be able to listen to IGP topology changes, or pull routing and segment information from routers signaling topology changes.

Hi,

That’s much easier to understand, thanks!

Ben.

[…]