Brian, thanks for your reviews. Stefano, thanks for your responses. I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Nov 14, 2017, at 4:58 AM, stefano previdi <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
