Hi Deborah, thanks for your comment. Your suggestion to describe the PMS as a functional component (and a use case "separate physical unit") is good. I have no command of SDN or RFC5623 related terminology yet. I'll have to read a little before I start to parse the draft and adapt text.
I'll also adapt a path monitoring/s/an MPLS path monitoring Noone of the author team is a native speaker. Text of teams like ours admittedly has a certain tendency to be grammatically challenging. Missing clarity should be removed. Regards, Ruediger -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Deborah Brungard [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2017 15:38 An: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Betreff: Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09: (with COMMENT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Substantive Comments: General: I consider Informational status as appropriate. I found the draft title "oam-usecase" a bit misleading as the document is specifically about a centralized OAM system, but the document title is accurate so I'm ok as the draft title will not be visible once an RFC. "Framework and use cases" would of been more appropriate (to me). Because of the draft title, I found the document a bit confusing initially as I was not sure if "system" was used in the BFD sense e.g. a functional component or as hinted at initially, and as Section 4, Fig. 1 shows, a physically separate "system". Suggest it would help the reader to more clearly say this in the Abstract (the rtgdir reviewer also hinted at this). I'm not sure why the choice was to specifically specify a physically separate system? Why not as a functional component with a use case as being physically separate? And considering the document is scoped to a physically separate system, there is not much information on what is needed to support a physical separation (other AD comments). I'd suggest strongly to do a simple rewording to scope as a functional component. SDN architectures are based on functional components as everyone has different ideas on the physical location of a component and "functional" provides a flexibility. Suggest looking at RFC5623 on the VNTM component. Nits: I found multiple sentences lacked clarity/grammar. Ben noted several. Will depend if restructure to not preclude as a functional component. The first sentence of the abstract could be improved: a path monitoring/s/an MPLS path monitoring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
