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
> 
>