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

[Martin Vigoureux <[e-mail]>]

Hello Young,

if you could mention this somewhere that would help the reader I think.

beyond that I'm good. Many thanks for addressing all my comments.

-m

Le 2018-05-27 à 11:26, Leeyoung a écrit :
> Hi Martin,
> 
> On your one outstanding question, you are correct. In Figure 2, the NO and SP are merged.
> 
> With this, are there any other issues still pending? Please let us know.
> 
> Thanks.
> Young
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 3:03 AM
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 'The IESG' <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-14: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Thank you Daniele.
> 
> I had one outstanding question:
> 
> Fig. 1 shows the Customer in relation with the Service Provider but Fig.
> 2 shows a boundary between Customer and Network Operator. Are the NO and SP merged in Fig. 2?
> 
> Thx
> -m
> 
> Le 2018-05-25 à 8:28, Daniele Ceccarelli a écrit :
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> cleaning up a bit
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> [DC] We’re referring to the documents that describe the ACTN MPI and
>>>> CMI interfaces. (which is basically a set of YANG models like e.g.
>>>> the TE-Topology, TE-tunnel, etc). Basically the idea is: “I’m not
>>>> telling you here what you have to implement to be compliant with and
>>>> ACTN MPI, but it you can implement and ACTN MPI on top of one of the
>>>> boxes listed above, such box can be put into the ACTN controllers
>>>> hierarchy and that works just fine”.
>>> ok ...
>>> So you're saying that what an implementation would have to comply
>>> with is out of the scope of this document. Why not be explicit about that?
>>>
>> [>DC] Exactly. Yes, worth saying it.
>>
>>> What about my comment on NBI?
>> [>DC] missed it sorry. Since it occurs just once we can extend it.
>>
>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> 4.1. MDSC Hierarchy
>>>>
>>>> Can there be more than two levels in the MDSC hierarchy? In other
>>>> words, can an MDSC-L for an MDSC-H be itself an MDSC-H for an MDSC-L?
>>>> As a side note, since I made the mistake while writing this, you
>>>> have two occurrences of MSDC (instead of MDSC) in the doc .
>> [>DC] will fix it too.
>>>>
>>>> [DC] exactly, yes.
>>> Wouldn't it be worth saying it?
>> [>DC] Ok. What about this addition in section 4.1:
>>
>> OLD
>> The hierarchy of MDSCs can be seen in Figure 4.
>>
>> NEW
>> The hierarchy of MDSC can be recursive, where an MDSC-H is in turn an MDSC-L to an higher level MDSC-H. An example of hierarchy can be seen in Figure 4.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Daniele