Thanks Med for forwarding.
Thanks Giuseppe for making the link with
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization in your OPS-DIR review.
Hi Pascal, long time to see.
Yes, Janos' comment on your draft can be addressed thanks to
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization.
A brand new version was just posted yesterday. As document shepherd, I
welcome its latest improvements.
Regards, Benoit
On 6/29/2025 1:59 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Pascal,
(removing IETF LC list + added opsawg).
Thanks for the follow-up with Giuseppe. I think that we need to get
this right.
I saw that Janos raised similar comments
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/NqTndz1P2DaGTH45JCw5O9XQQqc/),
but failed to find where this was discussed then.
Cheers,
Med
*De :*Pascal Thubert <pascal.thub...@gmail.com>
*Envoyé :* samedi 28 juin 2025 12:42
*À :* Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fiocc...@huawei.com>
*Cc :* ops-...@ietf.org; det...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-raw-architecture....@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org
*Objet :* [OPS-DIR]Re: draft-ietf-raw-architecture-25 ietf last call
Opsdir review
MAny thanks Giuseppe!
I'll be on it. It could be quite a rework you're asking at this phase
of the process, a bit touchy to do without sending back the doc to the WG.
all the best
Pascal
Le mar. 24 juin 2025 à 13:18, Giuseppe Fioccola via Datatracker
<nore...@ietf.org> a écrit :
Document: draft-ietf-raw-architecture
Title: Reliable and Available Wireless Architecture
Reviewer: Giuseppe Fioccola
Review result: Has Issues
This document introduces the Reliable and Available Wireless (RAW)
Architecture. It leverages and extends RFC 8655 to adapt to the
challenges that
affect the wireless medium. I think that the document is valuable
and almost
ready for publication, but I have some comments.
The main issue, from an OPSDIR point of view, is section 2.6 on
OAM variations.
Considering the ongoing discussion on
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization,
it might be better to avoid general OAM definitions here. I
suggest to consider
RFC 7799 and RFC 9551 for reference and include only the terms
useful in the
context of this document. I would simply refer to the definitions
of RFC 9551
for In-band OAM and Out-of-band OAM. In addition, I would omit new
terms, e.g.
Limited OAM or Upstream OAM, which are not used in the rest of the
document
and, if needed, could be taken into account for
draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization.
I also found few nits for your consideration:
- Some acronyms in section 2 are well known (e.g. FEC, OAM, SNR,
Uplink,
Downlink, Downstream, Upstream,...) and can be simply explained
within the
text. - I suggest to move section 3.2 on "The RAW problem" earlier
in the
document, perhaps after the Introduction. - Some Figures can be
improved since
are not very clear, e.g. Figure 1, Figure 4, Figure 8 and Figure 10.
--
Pascal
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list --opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email toopsawg-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
