[Teas] comments on draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-04

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 11 June 2019 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 9C14A1200B3 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 Jql0hxTkgsV0 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D20C6120098 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 16:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CMGW (unknown [10.9.0.13]) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866571E065D for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:47:30 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id aqUEh6TdteyBxaqUEhQJbC; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:47:30 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Cc:To:Subject:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=bZkNniSAXOGZt6N4PAw1lKKp44OEFWWBY5Bq4geLULk=; b=yquFF+PAd4HVNDmD1hAPp/YHjh omCnrHdsTRES8l3vTrj+OxCLcr7vU+stbbWkjL41h3YqGH3csz1opHFM9XElkP5/2AvMo9ziE1iOP 0KxzCNvgH6dR3/WQg0yh1HdPk;
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=26479 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1haqUE-002obF-2k; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 17:47:30 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios@ietf.org
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <42962a29-c741-8ac4-5cc5-bfb5f5f1759b@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 19:47:29 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-Source-L: Yes
X-Exim-ID: 1haqUE-002obF-2k
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) [127.0.0.1]:26479
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 13
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/NXcLJp-RXw1FoaoMWXlkbmaYK6U>
Subject: [Teas] comments on draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-04
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:47:36 -0000

Hi,
	As part of preparing for LC, I reviewed this document and have some 
comments that I think that should be addressed before the document is 
published.  I think the first item should be addressed before LC, the 
others can be addressed at your discretion.

Title, 3 other places:
   Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP Network

Aren't the "suggestions" described in [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] and 
not in this document?  Perhaps eliminating the 3 uses of "suggestions" 
in the document and calling it "Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE 
in Native IP Network" would be more appropriate?

The reasons for the following don't really matter, so I suggest:
OLD
    controlled corporate network and are out of scope of this draft.  And
    as described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip], the solution for the
    DetNet use cases requires the update of the network data plane, which
    is not easy being deployed within the service provider network and is
    out of scope that described in [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
NEW
    controlled network and are out of scope of this draft.

Section 10 needs to be split into informative and normative subsections.

it would be good to review 
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-04.txt 
and see if you want to fix any of these.

That's it,
Lou