Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-14: (with COMMENT)
Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Sun, 27 May 2018 08:53 UTC
Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D7F126CC7; Sun, 27 May 2018 01:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 RJ2ax1G_JXZp; Sun, 27 May 2018 01:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 47693124B17; Sun, 27 May 2018 01:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A2E276A271AF7; Sun, 27 May 2018 09:53:19 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Sun, 27 May 2018 09:53:20 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.141]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.203]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Sun, 27 May 2018 01:53:15 -0700
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework@ietf.org>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "vbeeram@juniper.net" <vbeeram@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-14: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHT8z0s2Zo2rVJeCUKt9Ti2hECWjKQ/JOsAgAAr+YCAA/ho4A==
Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 08:53:14 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D005773@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <152715220506.30129.5178063481055865022.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <074a01d3f34b$08369d10$18a3d730$@olddog.co.uk> <616b6d2f-d7b9-10e5-7414-5d961cd14389@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <616b6d2f-d7b9-10e5-7414-5d961cd14389@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.81.155]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3woWMVmbTcIySOJQeluc98Q1veI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 08:53:30 -0000
Hi Martin, To follow-up with this email and to close up the thread, we will change: OLD: Domain Y to PE2 NEW: domain Y to PE2 Thanks. Young -----Original Message----- From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:martin.vigoureux@nokia.com] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:14 AM To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework@ietf.org; teas-chairs@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org; vbeeram@juniper.net Subject: Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-14: (with COMMENT) Adrian, thank you for your quick reply. Actually I prefer the new text :-) but I let you decide which one to use. Ok for not capitalising the first letter of domain. I note however there is one such occurrence: border nodes in Domain Y to PE2 cheers -m Le 2018-05-24 à 12:36, Adrian Farrel a écrit : > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for the comments. Although I am not a front page author, I am > answering the first of the comments because some of the text in > question was probably mine. > > I'll leave the rest for Young and Danielle. > >> * I'm not sure to understand your definition of Domain. You say: >> Specifically within this document we mean a part of an operator's >> network that is under common management. I'm not sure to understand >> what common means. > > The definition of "common" we're using is: > "belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all > members of a group" > > So we could say (note, we also forgot to comma a subclause) OLD > Specifically within this document > we mean a part of an operator's network that is under common > management. > NEW > Specifically, within this document, > we mean a part of an operator's network that is under shared > operational management using the same instances of a tool and > the same policies. > END > > (But actually, I find the original cleaner) > >> Also, you add a sentence after that but it didn't help me, in fact it >> confused me further. Is it the managed entities which have something >> in common or is that the managing entities which have something in >> common? In the latter case what would be the common thing? > > The following sentence is: > Network elements will often be grouped into > domains based on technology types, vendor profiles, and > geographic proximity. > > Examples of this would be: > - WDM equipment is managed using different instances of tools and > different policies from TDM equipment > - Optical equipment from vendor A is managed using different instances > of tools and different policies from vendor B > - A ring or a metro network is usually managed using different instances > of tools and different policies from other networks > >> On that matter, I would suggest to capitalise the first letter of all >> the occurrences of domain which correspond to this definition (with >> the hope that all of them do). > > My experience of the RFC Editor is that they really hate that form of > capitalisation. And since *all* mentions of "domain" in this document > conform to this definition, I think the document is consistent and no > capitalisation is needed. > > Cheers, > Adrian > >
- [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-i… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on dra… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on dra… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on dra… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on dra… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on dra… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on dra… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on dra… Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on dra… Leeyoung
- Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on dra… Martin Vigoureux