Hi Terry, We just updated draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases with more introductory text on FR/Microloop-avoidance and updated the reference to the draft in draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement.
Thanks. s. > On Apr 5, 2016, at 1:22 PM, Terry Manderson <terry.mander...@icann.org> wrote: > > 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, Š >> >> 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
