Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The following YANG items would benefit from references: -- Section 6. feature qinany. -- Section 6. feature bearer-reference. Perhaps RFC8049? -- Section 6. feature fast-reroute. Perhaps RFC6714? -- Section 6. identity control-mode. ** Section 6. identity customer-application. It is unclear what taxonomy is guiding this list or how this will be used. A few common user applications that didn’t seem to fit into the existing categories included: printing, version control, proxies, name/directory/auth services (e.g., DNS, LDAP, Kerberos, AD; is that network management?), ** Section 6. identity embb, urllc and mmtc. These appear to be the 5G key words. If that’s the intent, cite it as such. The current text of “… demands network performance with a wide variety of characteristics, such as data rate, latency, loss rate, reliability, and many other parameters” doesn’t explain anything. ** Section 6. feature rtg-isis. Typo. s/routeing/routing/ _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
