[Teas] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07: No Objection

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07

Thank you for the work put into this document. May I add that I was impressed
by the quality of the writing (it is clear, detailed, and easy to read)?

Please find below one blocking some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies
would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Many informative references to drafts

There are (too?) many informative references to IETF drafts; while these I-Ds
are adopted by WG, I wonder whether this I-D should be delayed until these
informative drafts are published... This suggestion is to ensure that the value
of this document is not compromised if the contents of these referenced drafts
is heavily changed or even worse they are never published.

## Section 1

While I know about the sensitivities around "network slice" term, this section
perhaps overdoes it to clarify "IETF network slices".

## Section 2.3

Should packet drop be listed in the performance isolation bullet (even if
somehow included in congestion) ?

## Section 2.4

Suggest to drop "control" from the section title.

## Section 3

A graphical description of the interactions among the components and interfaces
will be welcome, i.e., something similar to figure 1 of section 3.3 (and aasvg
would be a nice touch) ?

Should XMI be introduced as well ?

What is `Statistical packet bandwidth`? Is it about average and standard
deviation or something similar ? I am not an expert in ACTN, i.e., perhaps
other readers/implementers would prefer to have a clear definition.