Abdussalam, Thanks again, following IETF last call I'll discuss actions to take on the draft with the IESG.
Cheers, Andy On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Abdussalam Baryun < abdussalambar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Andrew, I am happy to see a survey draft, I never seen one > before in IETF, however, if there was a survey done before in IETF, it > will be interesting to mention that if you think necessary related. > > On 9/5/13, Andrew G. Malis <agma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Abdussalam, > > > > Many thanks for your review and comments on the draft. I have some > answers > > inline. > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun < > > abdussalambar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> The Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun > >> Date: 05.09.2013 > >> I-D name: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results > >> Received your Request dated 04.09.2013 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > >> The reviewer supports the draft subject to amendments. Overall the > >> survey is not easy to be used as source of information related to such > >> technology users, but easier as source of information related to > >> respondings of companies. > >> > >> AB> I prefer the title to start as: A Survey of .......... > >> > > > > Andy> The draft is reporting the results of the survey, rather than being > > the survey, so the title couldn't start as you suggested. A possibility > > could be "The Results of a Survey on Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit > > Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementations", but I think the > existing > > title is more concise. > > Yes that was my aim, thanks, > > > > Abstract> This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to > >> determine implementation trends. The survey and results is presented > >> herein. > >> > >> AB> How did the survey determine implementations related to users (are > >> they general known or uknown or chosen by authors...etc). What kind of > >> results? > >> > > > > Andy> The survey was of service providers deploying pseudowires and VCCV. > > The "users", in this case, are service providers. > > ok, if described in the document, and how were they selected, is it on > there work volume basis, or etc. > > > > > >> AB> the abstract starts interesting but ends making the results not > >> clear what it was (good, reasonable, expected, positive, had > >> conclusions..etc)? > >> AB> The draft states that it has no conclusion, because it is not > >> intended for that but to help in knowing results to help in other > >> future drafts. However, the abstract mentions that the survey > >> conducted to determine (not understood how to determine without > >> conclusions or analysis). > >> > > > > Andy> It wasn't the job of the people conducting the survey to draw > > conclusions from the results, it was for them to report the results so > that > > the working group could collectively draw conclusions in their ongoing > > work. At the time, the WG needed information on which combinations of PW > > and VCCV options were actually in use, and the survey was used to collect > > that information. > > Ok, the WG needs information, but if I still remember, the document > does not state/define such need to match the survey. > > > > > > >> Introduction> > >> In order to assess the best approach to address the observed > >> interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit > >> feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding > >> implementation. This document presents the survey and the > >> information returned by the user community who participated. > >> > >> AB> the introduction needs to show the importance of the survey, or > >> what makes such decision from the WG (i.e. seems like the WG has not > >> cover all types of community, not sure)? > >> AB> Why did the WG decide the survey by using questionnair? > >> > > > > Andy> The part of the Introduction on page 3 provides the background, > > rationale, and importance of the survey. We used a questionnaire as that > > form of survey is easiest for the respondents and allowed us to use > > SurveyMonkey to conduct the survey. > > The questionnaire method has advantages and disadvantages, so if on > section mentions the result validity in linked to method, I think the > reader will know how much he can depend on such results. > > > > > >> AB> suggest amending> the document presents the questionnair form > >> questions and information returned ...... > >> > > > > Andy> We could change the sentence to say "This document presents the > > survey questionnaire and the information returned by the user community > who > > participated." > > > > my language may not be perfect, but I agree that amending it to show > survey method and method of result collection. > > > >> Sections 1.1 1.2 and 1.3> > >> ......questions based on direction of the WG chairs...... > >> There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity > >> requirements in > >> Section 3. The responding companies are listed below in Section 2.1. > >> > >> AB> Why were thoes methodologies and why that way of quetions chosen > >> for this survey? The answer to this is important for the document > >> (informational) and future drafts. > >> > > > > Andy> While the survey questions were originally suggested by the WG > > chairs, they were written by the survey authors and reviewed by the WG > > prior to the collection of results. We could add that if you like. > > I think that is an important information, because the WG is part of > the community, not sure if you have service providers respondent which > are joined in the WG, if so then that information is important also, > even if there is no respondant in the WG participating mentioning that > is important also. > > > > > >> AB> The reason of the survey's methodology should be mentioned in > >> clear section, as the athors' opinion. > >> > >> Section 1.2> Form> > >> Why the form did not make security consideration related to > >> implementations in the form questions? which then may be used in > >> security section. > >> > > > > Andy> Because security information wasn't the subject of the survey. > > I thought the subject is implementation and interoperability of such > technology, therefore, security is always important subject for users. > However, if the survey does not want the security, mentioning that in > one section will show that it was out of scope (if I remember the > security related to implementations of users was not mentioned as out > of scope). > > > > > >> Results section 2> > >> AB> are difficult to read or find related to section 1.2. > >> AB> Usually the section mixes between what was returned and what was > >> given. It is prefered to have two separate sections as 1 (what was > >> given including the form), and what was returned as results. > >> > > > > The questions are in section 1.2, and the results are in section 2. > > In section 2 you mention many things that you have given to > respondants but that is not a result, what you give is a survey > method, but the respondants actions is the result. So I suggest to > take any information of your survey from the result section 2. > > Thanking you, > > AB >
