Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-08.txt> (Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in Native IP Network) to Informational RFC

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Deborah,

Thank you for the response.

At 11:34 AM 30-09-2019, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A wrote:
>So, "uses" is explicit in the charter. Why "use document" is not 
>mentioned explicitly in the milestone for the native IP work? In the 
>routing area, we usually progress by doing use scenarios, 
>requirements, generic architecture, solutions. Sometimes the use 
>scenarios are part of the requirements or a framework document. 
>Sometimes stand alone e.g. a quick scan of other groups: RFC6965, 
>RFC8355, RFC8403, RFC8578. I understand some Areas in IETF do not 
>publish Informational documents, do not find them "useful". In the 
>routing area, we do find them "useful". We value very much when 
>operators provide information on their planned use scenarios. It is 
>a decision of the working group and the AD to progress. This 
>document does have working group consensus to publish.

The issue which I raised was not about the category.  I understand 
that the Routing Area works differently from the area I am familiar 
with as I used to go through the drafts from all the areas before 
IESG evaluation.

>You ask - is there more than one vendor interested? For this type of 
>document, I think the interest of more than one operator is key. For 
>a solution document, yes, more than one vendor should be supporting. 
>The operators by bringing it to IETF are showing their interest for 
>a standard solution, it now will be for the vendors to show 
>interest. Other operators did not raise concerns with the document. 
>It is a product of the working group.

Ok.

>I noted your concern with the word "requirements" in the abstract. 
>The sentence is "Requirements for providing the End to End(E2E) 
>performance assurance are emerging within the service provider 
>network." This is not about the document providing "requirements" - 
>as you say the title and document does not have "requirements". This is

I noticed that the text in the Abstract might need some editing.  It 
can be fixed when the document goes through the editorial process.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy