Carlos, I just posted -08: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-08.txt
Inline On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:41:08PM -0800, Carlos Martinez wrote: > Reviewer: Carlos Martinez > Review result: Ready > > Reviewer: Carlos Martinez > Review Result: Ready > > I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. > These > comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of > the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included > in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should > treat these comments just like any other last call comments. > > I found this document well-written, informative and easy to read. I believe it > to be READY for publication as an informational document. > > >From an editorial pov tt does have numerous typos and sometimes uses > >colloquial > language which IMO would be best if changed into more formal prose. Other > reviewers have already pointed this out as well. I have done a more thorough spell check against -08 (converted to word to leverage MS words spell checking *sigh*). I also received a couple of explicit fixes from other reviewers that was included. I am not aware of specific colloquialisms in the text (standard disclaimer about english as a second language), but: i am happy to learn & improve my english, and the experience with the RFC editor fixing up lazy language was really excellent (just had another RFC published). So unless there are more specific suggestions for textual changes, i will simply wait until RFC editor takes over and ask him/her to beat us authors over the head / help formalize colloquialisms. > >From a technical point of view, the only aspect that I feel could be worth > reconsidering is whether considering very complex use cases involving > IPv4-to-IPv6 conversions really makes sense. Such complexity could very well > offset the advantages obtained from applying the ACP to the particular problem > of network management. Again, this is not an "issue" in the document since > it's > more related to my opinion on the matter. Stable-connectivity was put onto the ANIMA charter to discuss one core use-case for the ACP and thereby justify work on the ACP - and help refine details of the ACP (draft ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane). In the process of progressing both documents, i ended up moving a lot of the details about how to do the things we want to see happen from the informational stable-connectivity draft into the normative ACP draft because that made the work more useful because it created normative language (see evolution of ACP draft from ca. -08 to -13, especially section 8.1). In the end, stable-connectivity can appear to be left looking a bit like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_bank - all the difficult bits not fit to standardize: transition work like NAT to overcome lack of IPv6 or cool future stuff like MPTCP. Great but more work needed to standardize. But: I have repeatedly defended during working group last call the sections about options of IPv4-IPv6 transition because i explicitly dealt with customers who had no other choice to get started and actually had me document similar level of details - if you look at IPv6 gap analyses, you should notice that networking equipment is a lot further ahead than the randomn NOC solution/applications. So, yes, i do agree that there is a risk to shy off possible adopters with these details, but i hope its actually more helpful than scary: Depending on familiarity with NAT, readers hopefully either decide to configure their NAT if necessary or speed up their plans to get IPv6 also into their NOC to be able to use an ACP. And not documenting this in detail is like a bad sales pitch - "oh, sure, this will work fine... go figure out yourself the details". Sorry for the rant ;-) > My thanks go to the authors for a very informative and nice to read document. > > /Carlos Thank you for the review and insightful comment! Cheers Toerless -- --- t...@cs.fau.de _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
