[Teas] AD review for draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing

[James Guichard <[e-mail]>]

Dear authors,

Thank you for a nicely written document. Please consider the following comments (I have used line numbers from idnits to help identify where in the document the comment applies):


  == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of

     draft-dhody-teas-ietf-network-slice-mapping-04



  == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of

     draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-25



  == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of

     draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-24



  == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of

     draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn-17



  == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of

     draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-10



  == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of

     draft-ietf-teas-nrp-scalability-04



138     At one end of the spectrum, a virtual private wire or a Virtual



Jim> s/virtual private wire/Virtual Private Wire (VPW)



174     Section 3, "Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered (TE)

175     Networks (ACTN)", this document highlights how the ACTN approach



Jim> Section 3 has a longer description so either remove the section title above or correct it. Personally, I would just say Section 3 and remove the title text.



338     *  Physical forwarding plane sources, such as wavelengths and time

339         slots.



Jim> s/sources/resources (?)



386   3.2.  ACTN Virtual Network for and Scaling Network Slices



Jim> Please correct the above title. Is it ‘for’ scaling network slices or ‘and’



450     Note 2 - The MDSC-to-MDSC Interface (XMI) is an interface between two

451     MDSC functional elements encompassing different MDSC service-related

452     functions which is not defined in [RFC8453].



Jim> is it MDSC-to-MDSC or Service Orchestrator-to-MDSC interface? From figure 1 it looks like the latter (?) - please clarify.



673     The TE-service mapping model [I-D.ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang]

674     creates a binding relationship across a L2VPN Service Model (L3SM)



Jim> s/L2VPN Service Model/L3VPN Service Model - RFC 8299 is for L3SM not L2SM.

Thanks!

Jim