Re: [Teas] Terminology review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Wed, 30 November 2016 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F6F129413 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:48:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.117
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.117 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5UYjfgLKieX6 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:48:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4CDA1299A7 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:48:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DBR67031; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:48:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.177) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:48:44 +0000
Received: from DFWEML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.178]) by DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.177]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:48:42 -0800
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Terminology review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements
Thread-Index: AdJK/XwBwe/EVpdeSvSxTa+vYtHojAAQyKBgAACDbFA=
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:48:41 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E172A8E1904@dfweml501-mbx>
References: <00fa01d24afe$20ffcf70$62ff6e50$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.218.137.249]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090201.583F2D1D.023A, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: a54a288bda170f40c457b522c510eb50
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/nerF2ULg3eK7nkaC2edwRnJgOOA>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Terminology review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:48:51 -0000

Hi Adrian,

Thank you so much for your careful and very useful review of this document. We will try to address your comments/suggestions and have the WG know all the changes of the document before publishing the revision. Please see in-line for my comment. 

Best regards,
Young (on behalf of co-authors and contributors)

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 5:37 AM
To: teas@ietf.org
Subject: [Teas] Terminology review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements

As promised, I have reviewed draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements for terminology and consistency with RFC 7926.

Actually, I had no issues with the use of terminology in this document. There is a terminology dependency on the Framework draft which:
- may seem unnatural (having requirements depend on the architecture that
   satisfies the requirements)
- means that the Framework needs to be a normative reference.

YOUNG>> OK. 

I tried to understand the purpose of the document, and the best value I could find was in section 4: that section seems to tell me what function needs to be supported by the two interfaces. Section 2 was also somewhat useful in that it seems to say what the purpose and value of ACTN is, however, I couldn't really understand what that is doing in this document rather than in the Framework: it seems to be trying to justify ACTN rather than impose requirements on something
- perhaps it imposes requirements on the developers of the solution architecture, but if so it is a bit self-referential.

YOUNG>> I think the part of the reasons why you feel this way is that many operators' use-cases had their multi-domain architecture in mind. In a sense, each use-case that was referenced and presented in the ACTN BOF back in Toronto (IETF 90) had this very particular context in mind and thus the requirements appeared to be self-referential based on their use-case. This requirement document tried to come up with a set of common requirements from each use-case referenced.  

Section 3, seems to just repeat section 2 (but viewed from a different angle).
Section 3.1 doesn't add much except a type classifier for requirements. So I
suggest:
- move the definitions of types of requirement from 3.1 to
   the top of 2
- split 2 into subsections for the two types of requirement
   reflecting the classification in 3.1
- delete the whole of 3

YOUNG>> Agreed. 

In section 4, about half of the interface requirements are accompanied by little quotes (such as "Give me a VN?"). This is really useful and should be extended to all of the interface requirements.

YOUNG>> Great suggestion. Will try to do that. 

Also in section 4 it is often unclear what the bullets mean under each requirement. I think these are parameters of qualifications of the request/response at the interface, but it would help to make this clear.

YOUNG>> Agreed. 

I have sent the authors a more detailed set of changes, typos, clarifications, and suggestions in a Word file which I won't bother the list with.

YOUNG>> Received. Thanks.  

Cheers,
Adrian
--
Support an author and your imagination.
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales.
More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales.
https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
Or buy from me direct.

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas