Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Benjamin:
The pithy summary that you proposed is right. The relationship between these two parts is that the simulation parts(4.4 and 4.5) of the document just demonstrated how to solve efficiently the TE scenarios/req  described in 3.1 and 3.4.
The scenarios described in 3.2 and 3.3 can also be solved using the similar strategy but not covered by the current simulation process.
What summary sentences will be appropriate for the above information then? Would you like to give us some hints from the experts viewpoint? 
We can update the abstract in next version to reflect this relationship, together with other responses to you and reviewers’s comments.

Thanks in advance.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On Oct 4, 2019, at 05:05, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Aijun,
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 04:10:16PM +0800, Aijun Wang wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, Benjamin:
>> Thanks for your review.
>> 
>> On summary, this draft just gives the scenarios that needed for TE in Native IP network, this is absent in current existing IETF documents. The simulation results just demonstrated the applicability of central control under the global view.
>> This document is the base document of other two drafts:
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-04 (Solution Draft)
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-04(PCEP extension)
>> 
>> There are currently at least three different solutions trying to accomplish the TE necessities in native IP network. This scenarios and simulation draft is just the start points of these documents.
> 
> Okay, so it sounds like the goal of the document is to show that there are
> some scenarios/use-cases in which Native IP provides a substantial
> improvement from the previous state of the art (or, perhaps, from the other
> competing options), and the simulations are just a tool used to augment the
> qualitative description with some concrete instantiations.  This does not
> match fully with the current Abstract/Introduction, the former of which I
> quote from:
> 
>                                                       This document
>   describes various complex scenarios and simulation results when
>   applying a PCE in a native IP network.  This solution, referred to as
>   Centralized Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR), integrates the advantage
>   of using distributed protocols and the power of a centralized control
>   technology.
> 
> A pithy summary of that exerpt might be "describes some routing scenarios
> and simulation results for CCDR; CCDR combines advantages of distributed
> protocols and centralized control".  While those statements seem to be
> true, it doesn't say much about the presented scenarios and results
> implying that CCDR is the best or even a good solution for the described
> scenarios; it's just two facts that don't get tied together.
> 
>> More details responses are inline below. Wish they can convince you for the future vote.
>