Re: [Teas] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-14: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Thanks -- all of these work well for me.

Thank you!
W

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:10 PM Leeyoung <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Warren,
>
>
>
> Thanks for providing good comments for the document. Please see inline for
> our response to your comments.
>
> Please let us know if our responses are all good to you.
>
>
>
> Thanks & Best regards,
>
> Young and Daniele,
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:39 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Vishnu Beeram <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Warren Kumari's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-14: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
>
> draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-14: No Objection
>
>
>
> 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-actn-framework/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> COMMENT:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I have a few nits to further improve readability:
>
>
>
> Section 1:
>
> "Traffic Engineered (TE) networks have a variety of mechanisms to
> facilitate separation of data plane and control plane" s/facilitate
> separation/facilitate the separation/ ?
>
>
>
> *DC&YL>> Yes, agree. We will correct as you suggested. *
>
>
>
> "This document describes a set of management and control functions used to
> operate one or more TE networks to construct virtual networks that can be
> represented to customers" The word "represented" here sounds odd, but I
> don't really have an alternative -- perhaps just "presented" ? Represented
> is probably technically correct, but it feels like there should be a more
> appropriate one...
>
>
>
> *DC&YL>> We will replace "represented" with "presented". *
>
>
>
> Section 3.4:
>
> "In addition, some networks may operate a control plane and as such it is
> not practical for the customer to directly interface with network
> elements." Can you please clarify that you mean a TE (or similar) control
> plane -- I believe that *all* networks have some sort of control plane (and
> so the "some networks"
>
> is false / misleading).
>
>
>
> *DC&YL>> Here in this sentence, what we were saying is that “some networks
> may operate a centralized controller, whether it is TE or non-TE, and as
> such it is also not practical*
>
> *for the customer to directly interface with network elements. As unclear,
> and as the first sentence already says this, we think the best is to remove
> this sentence. Hope that is clearer.*
>
>
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf