Hi Juergen, Please see my responses/resolutions below. I'll be submitting a version -03 with these changes (plus a couple wording changes from Dean).
Thanks for the review! Alia On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:29:38PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement/ > > Have you read the problem statement draft? > > Do you think it is ready to be published as a RFC? > > (If no, please respond to the list with issues.) > > I have read <draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-01.txt> (and the diff > for -02). I have a couple of comments that I like to see addressed, > some are purely editorial (and may be left to the RFC editor), others > are I think clarification or suggestions for more appropriate wordings. > > - Please make sure the central figure fits on a single page since a > page break in the middle is kind of disturbing. > > - What is a "_clear_ transfer syntax"? Perhaps simply remove 'clear'. > Replaced "clear" with "concise"... > - What are "_semantic-aware_ data models"? Either remove > _semantic-aware_ or define it. > Replaced with "meaningful" > - s/MIBs/MIB modules/ Done > - s/MIB Notifications/MIB notifications/ Done > - This is not quite correct: > [...] nor is there the > standardized ability to set up the router to trigger different > actions upon an event's occurrence so that a rapid reaction can be > accomplished. > > I believe the MIB modules that were created by the Distributed > Manaement (DISMAN) working group provide this functionality. You may > want to rephrase this so that it says that such MIB modules were not > successfully deployed or something like that, but it is not correct > that there are no standardized MIB modules for this. > > - I find some of the high throughput "desired aspect" of the protocol > problematic, e.g. "should be able to handle a considerable number of > operations per second above what basic Netconf or a propretiary CLI > can". I find this ill defined. I see this got fixed in -02 which > just got posted and I appreciate that fix. > Replaced with "While a few of these (e.g. link up/down) may be available via MIB notifications today, the full range is not - nor has there been successfully deployed the standardized ability to set up the router to trigger different actions upon an event's occurrence so that a rapid reaction can be accomplished. " > - s/NetConf/NETCONF/ > > - The NETCONF community was forced to follow a sequential process and > it took us time to create YANG after NETCONF and we are now getting > core data models out (some published, some in the RFC queue, some in > the hands of the IESG). Hence I like the following to be rephrased: > > OLD: > > However, the lack of > standard data models have hampered the adoption of NetConf. > > NEW: > > However, the initial lack of > standard data models has hampered early adoption of NETCONF. Done. > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
