Re: [Teas] Review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-01

Hi Adrian,

Thanks a lot for the thorough review. 

I agree with the usage of abstraction in the two scenarios, the suggested change makes sense to me. 

We'll go through the doc and fix the comments. Regarding the APs I don't understand if you're suggesting to define the APs in a different document since they don't fit into the architecture or you don't see any value in them at all and you're suggesting to drop them?

Thanks a lot
Daniele   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: venerdì 25 novembre 2016 20:04
> To: teas@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework@ietf.org
> Subject: [Teas] Review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-01
> 
> Hi list and authors,
> 
> I took an action to review the ACTN documents for terminology and
> consistency with RFC 7926.
> 
> The first on my list was the framework draft.
> 
> The terminology was not too bad. The main issue was that the document was
> using "abstraction" in two different ways:
> 1. presentation of real resources as a virtualised set of resources 2. separation
> of processes used by an overlay from the actual processes used by the
> underlay.
> These are both correct uses of the word although the first definition is what is
> usually used in the industry (ONF, IETF). Orchestration may be an adequate
> term for the second meaning.
> 
> I found the definitions of "node" and "link" and suggested replacement text.
> 
> Also some need to be careful with the term "aggregation".
> 
> Along the way I found quite a number of typos, format issues, and changes for
> clarity. I collected these in a Word file with change markers. I sent that to
> Young, and I won't bore the list with a non-standard format file.
> 
> In summary...
> - Lots of format issues caused by export from Word
> - Need to put Abstract on front page
> - s/draft/document/
> - sort out references
> - expand abbreviations on first use
> - clarify the difference between "resource slicing" and "resource sharing"
> - clarify the terms "client" and "customer"
> - some of the statements about VPNs seem to be over-constrained
> - delete figures 2 and 3 as basically empty
> - tidy up figures
> - note "editor note" needs fixing
> - try to resolve difference between an end point and a network function
>    located in a DC
> - security section is absent
> - sort out authors and contributors
> 
> As an aside, I am not sure that there is a necessity to have APs (and VNAPs) in
> the architecture. I don't object to them, just I don't see the point.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas