[Teas] Roman Danyliw's Abstain on draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-09: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-09: Abstain

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios/



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

==[ Summary
I am balloting as an ABSTAIN because the primary contribution of this draft
appears to be the simulation results.  However, these results appear to be
already published in greater detail in
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8657733.

I have no commentary on the utility of the CDDR Scenarios found in Section 3.

==[ Details

I have reservations about the approach taken in Section 4.  As a stand-alone
write-up, it insufficiently describes the simulations in question. 
Furthermore, the content in this section copies verbatim or re-phrases the
source material of these simulations from an already published academic paper
(without citation).  See http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8657733.  In
particular:

-- The entirely of Section 4.1 (text and diagrams) is a cut-and-paste from
Section V.B of the academic paper.

-- The simulation results of Section 4.4 in this draft align with the analysis
in Section V.C of the academic paper.

-- The simulation results of Section 4.5 in this draft align with analysis in
Section V.D of the academic paper.

Without the benefit of the academic paper cited above, I would have had the
following feedback on Section 4:

-- Section 4.  What use case is being simulated isn’t clear.  The text is
Section 3.1 states that “Section 4 of this document describes the simulation
results of this use case”.  However, the topology for the simulation described
in Section 4.2 looks different than the one in Figure 1 (of Section 3.1).

-- Section 4.  A few questions about the simulation design:
Only the results were presented.  How were the simulations constructed and
results evaluated?

Section 4.0 states that this section “illustrate[s the] CCDR algorithm”.  Where
is that algorithm defined?  Is that Section 7 of draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip
or http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8657733?

What specific algorithms was used to create the contrasting charts in Figures 7
and 8?

Section 4.2 said that “[t]he number of links connecting one edge node to the
set of core nodes is randomly between 2 to 30, and the total number of links is
more than 20000.”  Section 4.3 said that “[i]n the CCDR simulation, the
dimension of the traffic matrix is 500*500.  About 20% links are overloaded
when the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol is used in the network.”,
What is the basis of these choices?  Are they representative of a given use
case?

What is the relationship between the Sections 4.2 and 4.3, and the simulation
results in Sections 4.4 and 4.5

Additional feedback includes:

-- Section 5.  The purpose of this section isn’t clear.

-- Missing references
Section 1.  A reference to CCDR is needed.  Also, given that CCDR is the basis
of the simulation, it needs to be normative.

Section 5.  A reference is needed for the IEEE document.