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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the comments. Although I am not a front page author, I am answering
the first of the comments because some of the text in question was probably
mine.

I'll leave the rest for Young and Danielle.

> * I'm not sure to understand your definition of Domain. You say:
> Specifically within this document we mean a part of an operator's network that
> is under common management. I'm not sure to understand what common
> means.

The definition of "common" we're using is:
"belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all members
of a group"

So we could say (note, we also forgot to comma a subclause)
OLD
        Specifically within this document
        we mean a part of an operator's network that is under common
        management.
NEW
        Specifically, within this document,
        we mean a part of an operator's network that is under shared
        operational management using the same instances of a tool and
        the same policies.
END

(But actually, I find the original cleaner)

> Also, you add a sentence after that but it didn't help me, in fact it confused
> me further. Is it the managed entities which have something in common or is
> that the managing entities which have something in common? In the latter case
> what would be the common thing?

The following sentence is:
        Network elements will often be grouped into
        domains based on technology types, vendor profiles, and
        geographic proximity.

Examples of this would be:
- WDM equipment is managed using different instances of tools and
   different policies from TDM equipment
- Optical equipment from vendor A is managed using different instances
   of tools and different policies from vendor B
- A ring or a metro network is usually managed using different instances
  of tools and different policies from other networks

> On that matter, I would suggest to capitalise the first letter of all the
> occurrences of domain which correspond to this definition (with the hope that
> all of them do).

My experience of the RFC Editor is that they really hate that form of
capitalisation. And since *all* mentions of "domain" in this document conform to
this definition, I think the document is consistent and no capitalisation is
needed.

Cheers,
Adrian