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

Hi Adrian,

I also thank you for your careful and useful review of the framework document. 
As Daniele committed for the revision, we will promptly make the changes and have the list know what changes has been made.

In regard to your comments on the APs/VNAPs, I have the same question as Daniele's. Please clarify it. Thanks.

Best regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 8:15 AM
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; teas@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework@ietf.org
Subject: 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