Hi Brian, thanks for the comments. See answers below.
> On Nov 11, 2017, at 12:25 AM, Brian Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Ready > > Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases-11.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2017-11-11 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-04 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-12-14 > > Summary: Ready > -------- > > Comment: > -------- > > When I reviewed this for Last Call, I had two general concerns: > 1) Is it useful to publish use cases now, at the end of > protocol development? this is an old story and you should probably read the archives of the spring mailing list ;-) To give you a summarized version of it, I’d say that yes, it makes sense to have the use-case properly documented. Resiliency is one of the major network operator use-case in segment routing networks and vendors are required to provide solutions for it. Having a document which can be pointed to and that describes the typical use case and requirements helps the reader in understanding how the component of the SR architecture address these requirements. > 2) The AD review dated 2017-04-20 pointed out that the > document should be historically consistent. > > I'm going to assume that since the AD is bringing the draft > to the IESG, he's now happy on these two points. > > Minor issue: > ------------ > > I originally commented that Section 3 doesn't actually mention > any specific requirements for Spring. In conversation with > Stefano: > >>> Right, but you don't state any *requirements* for SPRING that result from >>> this case, >>> except the very general statement before section 3.1. Maybe that does >>> translate >>> into specific requirements, but I don't see how. > >> the generic requirement is the ability to instantiate source routed paths. >> These source routed paths, in the framework of this draft, are for LFAs. > > I still think that Section 3 doesn't identify this requirement. > Maybe it's obvious to one skilled in the art, however. So > I'm going to say "Ready”. Thanks. s. > > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
