Hi Terry,
sorry for coming back late on this. See below: > On Jan 19, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Terry Manderson <terry.mander...@icann.org> > wrote: > > Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Discuss > > 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-spring-problem-statement/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for putting in the effort in writing this. Firstly, I concur with > Benoit's observation about text taken from the charter and laid in to the > document verbatim. That tends not to help the reader and a large > assumption is made that the reader understands the concerns of source > based routing for partitioning VPNs, fast re-route, TE, signalling, and > so on. yes, the co-authors assume that the reader is already familiar with concepts such as source routing, TE, VPN, … Maybe we can add references/pointers to relevant documents. > Please consider rewriting the intro and other parts to help with > understanding (for example in 3.2 Fast Reroute; microploop avoidance is > listed as a requirement, however a sensible coverage of microloop > avoidance is not found in the draft, nor in the nearby referenced > spring-resiliency-use-cases). Indeed. We will put additional text on microloop-avoidance in draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases. > This also leaves me scratching my head as > to why we don't see this document and the resiliency-use-cases (and > others) at the same time when they are aligned? Or restructure the > document to be more informative on these facets in the first case. > > Can the document also be explicit that while the SPRING problem/solution > space needs to be cognisant of autonomous systems that share > policy/interoperate across boundaries the primary port of call is in > regard to the IGP. This will certainly aide in restraining everyone (esp. > the reader) from trying to boil the 'internet ocean'. (this at least > should be easy to address :) I agree. We have significantly revised the security section. It now talks about trust boundaries. s. _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring