Very last minute review comments. Thanks for the work on this draft. I think the fundamentals here are useful and we are referencing this work from the TEAS network slicing work. I also see it being mentioned in the TEAS packet-optical integration applicability statement.
Thanks, Adrian === Section 2 You can remove the BCP 14 and the references as you don't use any of the key words. --- While the terms UNI and NNI are expanded adequately, I think there is an assumption that the meanings of the terms are understood by the readers. Do you have a reference for them you could add? --- I wonder whether at least one of the CEs in one of the examples should be dual homed. --- Section 4 s/seen as an inventory data/seen as inventory data/ --- Figure 7 is somewhat separated from the text that talks about it (starts "Each SAP is characterized...") --- I'm not very comfortable about using I-Ds as references in the data model. I understand that the three cases are all for the definitions of service types and the references are pretty much for information, but I wonder what happens to the module if the drafts never become RFCs. --- -----Original Message----- From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Sent: 22 April 2022 20:00 To: [email protected] Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap Hello, Opsawg. The last round of comments on this draft have been discussed/resolved, and we'd like to kick off a three-week WG LC for this work. Please provide any and all feedback on list before the end of the day May 13, 2022. Authors, if you have suggestions for a good shepherd for this document, we'd love to hear them. I have requested reviews from Ops and Routing on this work. Thanks. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
