Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model-09: (with COMMENT)

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benjamin,

Thanks a lot for your quick acknowledgment. 

Best regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 9:28 AM
To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Vishnu Beeram <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Young,

These proposed changes look good to me.

Thanks,

Benjamin

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:43:10PM +0000, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving valuable comments and suggestions.
> 
> 
> 
> Please see inline for my response.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Young
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 3:56 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Vishnu Beeram <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model-09: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> 
> draft-ietf-teas-actn-info-model-09: 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-info-model/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> COMMENT:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> I echo the comments questioning the archival value for publishing a document like this.
> 
> I think it's a good intermediate point to have, including the security considerations text (thank you for the quick update after the secdir review!), but am unsure what portion(s) of it could not be easily folded into successor documents.
> 
> 
> 
> YL>> Please see my comment to Ben on the archival value of this document.
> 
> 
> 
> Section 2
> 
> 
> 
>   This section provides an ACTN common interface information model to
> 
>    describe in terms of primitives, objects, their properties
> 
>    (represented as attributes), their relationships, and the resources
> 
>    for the service applications needed in the ACTN context.
> 
> 
> 
> nit: The grammar here is a bit odd -- as-is, it says we have a model "to describe in terms of [a list of things]", but don't say what is being described.  I'm not entirely sure what the intended text would be, though.
> 
> 
> 
> YL>> I agree. I would change as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> NEW: This section provides an ACTN common interface information model to
> 
>    describe primitives, objects, their properties
> 
>    (represented as attributes), their relationships, and the resources
> 
>    for the service applications needed in the ACTN context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 3.2, 3.4
> 
> 
> 
> Do I understand correctly that Modify is for CNC-to-MDSC commmunication and Update is for MDSC-to-CNC communication?  Perhaps this could be made more explicit.
> 
> 
> 
> YL>> Yes, your understanding is correct. We will add explicit text that says: Modify is for CNC-to-MDSC communication in Section 3.2 and Update is for MDSC-to-CNC communication in Section 3.4.
> 
> 
> 
> Section 5.7.2
> 
> 
> 
>       [...] For example, permission
> 
>       the correct selection from the network of the destination related
> 
>       to the indicated VNF It is e.g. the case of VM migration among
> 
>       data center and CNC can enforce specific policy that can permit
> 
>       MDSC/PNC to calculate the correct path for the connectivity
> 
>       supporting the data center interconnection required by
> 
>       application.
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be an editing error around "indicated VNF It is e.g.", maybe just a missing full stop and commas around "e.g."?
> 
> 
> 
> YL>> Yes, there is an editing error here.
> 
> OLD: For example, permission
> 
>       the correct selection from the network of the destination related
> 
>       to the indicated VNF It is e.g. the case of VM migration among
> 
>       data center and CNC can enforce specific policy that can permit
> 
>       MDSC/PNC to calculate the correct path for the connectivity
> 
>       supporting the data center interconnection required by
> 
>       application.
> 
> 
> 
> NEW: For example, CNC can enforce client-specific preferences, e.g.,
> 
>       selection of a destination data center from the set of candidate data
> 
>       centers based on some criteria in the context of VM migration.
> 
>       MSDC/PNC should then provide the data center interconnection that
> 
>       supports the client-specific preference.
> 
> 
> 
> Section 9
> 
> 
> 
>    The ACTN information model does not directly introduce security
> 
>    issues. Rather, it defines a set of interfaces for traffic
> 
> 
> 
> I would hope that no product of the IETF directly introduces security
> 
> *issues* (problems)!  Maybe "is not directly relevant when considering potential security issues" is some better wordsmithing.
> 
> 
> 
> YL>> Agree. Will change the sentence as you suggest.
> 
> 
> 
>    Implementations of the ACTN framework will have distributed
> 
>    functional components that will exchange this information model.
> 
> 
> 
> nit: Perhaps this is overly pedantic, but are they exchanging this information model, or a concrete instantiation that adheres to this model?
> 
> 
> 
> YL>> Agree. How about:
> 
> 
> 
> NEW:
> 
>    Implementations of the ACTN framework will have distributed
> 
>    functional components that will exchange a concrete instantiation
> 
>    that adheres to this information model.
> 
> 
> 
>