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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

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