From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> Sent: 18 May 2022 14:24
On 5/18/22 06:16, tom petch wrote: > From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: 17 May 2022 16:48 > > I am closing the WG LC for this document. The LC prompted some good > comments from DIR reviews and a comprehensive review from Adrian which > led to a TEAS cross-review. > > The biggest discussion came between Tom P and the WG/authors on the > definition of what a SAP is in the vein of this doc. While some of his > suggestions have made it into the latest revision of the document, I am > not certain this discussion has been fully resolved. > > The last email I saw was > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/D-z_rGqFl8V47fHlAkwSqiOxEDk/. > Is this resolved? > > <tp> > well, look at Mach Chen's Rtgdir review which. for me, covers the same ground > and suggests that it is unresolved. I am perhaps more familiar than Mach > with the terminology of the various TEAS documents and so am not quite so > puzzled as he is but would say we both share the same puzzlement. The authors added some clarifying text to the definition of a SAP in the terminology section based on Mach's and your reviews. It is a bit more descriptive (though I certainly would want Attachment Circuit called out as a term). Have you reviewed -05 to see if it addresses your concerns? <tp> Not yet - I will have a look. Tom Petch Joe > > I was looking at another I-D by the author, draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm, and was > struck by the use of the term 'service' in that I-D which I again was unclear > about the meaning of, but in that I-D. it is not such a barrier to my > understanding. > > Tom Petch > > Based on that, we can take -05 forward to the IESG once we get a > shepherd. But this point seems important to resolve. > > Joe > > On 4/22/22 15:07, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: >> Hello, Opsawg. The last round of comments on this draft have been >> discussed/resolved, and we'd like to kick off a three-week WG LC for >> this work. Please provide any and all feedback on list before the end >> of the day May 13, 2022. >> >> Authors, if you have suggestions for a good shepherd for this document, >> we'd love to hear them. >> >> I have requested reviews from Ops and Routing on this work. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Joe >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> OPSAWG@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >> > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
