Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-14: (with COMMENT)

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:14 AM
To: [e-mail]; 'The IESG' <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
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
> 
>