Stefano, Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS, when I see a rev of this document that addresses these items I will review and likely clear the discuss.
Cheers Terry On 5/04/2016, 4:04 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <sprev...@cisco.com> wrote: >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. >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
