[Teas] Review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-01

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 25 November 2016 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 8B38C124281; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:03:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 A5ARK-REG_9E; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:03:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99ABA129449; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 11:03:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id uAPJ3o4w013099; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:03:50 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (206.131.51.84.dyn.plus.net [84.51.131.206] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id uAPJ3nmT013085 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:03:49 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <teas@ietf.org>
References:
In-Reply-To:
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:03:48 -0000
Message-ID: <035f01d2474e$a7bf9ee0$f73edca0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdJFby+06EuGJMdfR5C9V8d8uo588gB3DEEw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22722.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.508-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--4.508-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: WNN0YgD6gojbjF84eGLr8qb8GfRpncAzBdebOqawiLv9EEYrC2uGMxlb y9sTjxSikzG01C/Uzh5bvNVEiLOauquaZbrFj5mYSDkh6bW+bccK3iJpXUOQQ5N+4675W9rbPOM 7YhrpIiKEP4XhO1jJGEHtx5AxXwQHxEEtnnH5KRcSDAzxRL+lMRrHeFABLxXV+Cckfm+bb6DEfw 4CEXdUNQxcCSVShdBgTgId0YAAsmc72d2F4DOSZNxajlW+zwxClnrMq7Sriu0GW3hFnC9N1fWx3 wblDGHNjVh9zIHTM2XHovCWwl5jce7ou6E91dhw6Zzj+kMRBrZ9LQinZ4QefL6qvLNjDYTwzhtq OA7SSC8fRoCwBzgRYidET58jp62SD16MOO3jYBxLgjbNq8cBPXcBUfR/2KKYlsMPpHIUb0hw9ts NYcm7r9s3hA+YZShLKWy3/3WWFuPfGghAeer1KGJXB78pFPlK6Hq9RCTLxvsstHmcXeW1eBVSGW 4LjW40FYnPSoXfG8ckhYHVA/r8kw==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/De091wk_IW3eNrnsHN26d4BPbe8>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework@ietf.org
Subject: [Teas] Review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-01
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:03:55 -0000

Hi list and authors,

I took an action to review the ACTN documents for terminology and consistency
with RFC 7926.

The first on my list was the framework draft.

The terminology was not too bad. The main issue was that the document was using
"abstraction" in two different ways:
1. presentation of real resources as a virtualised set of resources
2. separation of processes used by an overlay from the actual processes used by
the underlay.
These are both correct uses of the word although the first definition is what is
usually used in the industry (ONF, IETF). Orchestration may be an adequate term
for the second meaning.

I found the definitions of "node" and "link" and suggested replacement text.

Also some need to be careful with the term "aggregation".

Along the way I found quite a number of typos, format issues, and changes for
clarity. I collected these in a Word file with change markers. I sent that to
Young, and I won't bore the list with a non-standard format file.

In summary...
- Lots of format issues caused by export from Word
- Need to put Abstract on front page
- s/draft/document/
- sort out references
- expand abbreviations on first use
- clarify the difference between "resource slicing" and "resource sharing"
- clarify the terms "client" and "customer"
- some of the statements about VPNs seem to be over-constrained
- delete figures 2 and 3 as basically empty
- tidy up figures
- note "editor note" needs fixing
- try to resolve difference between an end point and a network function
   located in a DC
- security section is absent
- sort out authors and contributors

As an aside, I am not sure that there is a necessity to have APs (and VNAPs) in
the architecture. I don't object to them, just I don't see the point.

Cheers,
Adrian