Warren, Will fix all of those.
As for "as robust as possible", you are correct that it's an empty phrase. I will change it to "it is essential that every implementation continues to operate in adverse conditions." While I agree that this should apply to everything, even the British Airways checkin system, it does seem of special importance for autonomics. Regards Brian On 23/05/2017 02:56, Warren Kumari wrote: > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: 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-anima-grasp/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Firstly, thank you for addressing Joel's OpsDir review. > As others have noted, this is a long document :-) I think that, in spite > of this, it is very well written.... > > These comments were written against v-11, but I think are still > applicable to -12. > > > Section 2.1, D1: > "... the protocol can represent and discover any kind of > technical objective ..." While the document *does* say that readers > should be familiar with RFC7575, RFC7576, and > I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model, I think it would still be helpful to > (briefly) describe an objective here, or simply mention that "technical > objective" is a term of art and point to the Terminology section (or Sec. > 3.10). When I initially read this it sounded incredibly broad, once I > found the Terminology section it all made more sense... > > > S2.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation Capability > > "SN5. > ... > It follows that the protocol’s resource requirements must be > appropriate for any device that would otherwise need human intervention." > > > I found this sentence confusing / hard to parse. I *think* that you are > saying that the protocol should not require so many resources that it > cannot be deployed on devices (and so humans would still need to manually > manage them)? > If so, I think that this could be clearer, but, unfortunately I cannot > provide better text... > > 3.2. High Level Deployment Model > "A more common model is expected to be a multi-purpose device capable of > containing several ASAs." > I'm sure you are right... but for a reader new to the topic this is not > obvious (nor clear) - would it be possible to provide some sort of > examples of such devices (or brief description of why a more common model > would have several ASAs?) E.g: "multi-purpose device capable of > containing several ASAs (such as a router or large switch)" (or > whatever...) > > > "..it is essential that every implementation is as robust as possible." > -- this sounds suspiciously like "Don't write bad code...". What is > the purpose if this statement? Do you think that it will somehow make > people write better / more robust code? If so, shouldn't this be in our > standard boilerplate? This whole paragraph feels like it is not > actionable / is something that all code for all implementations of > everything should follow... (I have a horrible feeling that I'm heading > off on a soapbox rant / that this is a pet-peeve...) > > > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
