Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-04
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 21 April 2016 11:38 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8EF12E37D; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 04:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1pivK1BKAbfq; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 04:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F01D112E3DA; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 04:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3LBc28a030639; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:38:02 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ([213.5.92.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3LBc1oR030631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:38:01 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Stewart Bryant' <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, rtg-ads@ietf.org
References: <5718AFA4.4010908@gmail.com> <062501d19bc1$d3fb24e0$7bf16ea0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <062501d19bc1$d3fb24e0$7bf16ea0$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:38:02 +0100
Message-ID: <063401d19bc2$43e55a00$cbb00e00$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHySV7uinDF30sOc86UhvTDbccVMAL6R9kDnzsfY0A=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22274.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.906-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--17.906-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: X4bcv0S75Kk4HKI/yaqRm8zWN98iBBeGQNrgRraxTQFGr8G3v23M31Dc zN/SMpBYlj9EHCczd3JnuZu7SLIewojQo/Iw2s1SQpxiLlDD9FVhBfGxmdHCguc1p9J5fpfi94m WpQQzED/h7zLZMPEJbrLJMDbAGS4OhdUss4Ved7Ovdf2B19ItZXidToq2MMwDh8BhJvgqWBkimX l7sJqs2lDsDHKCnI6VmRZvbOkh+FPYfPOPCpnfAnqlaakV3yjelWXxvHK+rV7czkKO5k4APqTUJ fxllbMPk1QAW+Nk6QAixnd3Qvh+BcME2BsoiKJMZg1i2wTmScNQCOsAlaxN76R+x6Y7WC8DMA0T vVWjWva8q5RnxSTV7eCp+Owu+eqsqdj16zO5P+SeAiCmPx4NwFkMvWAuahr8+gD2vYtOFhgqtq5 d3cxkNQP90fJP9eHt
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/4iKnDxEnzi8i_LR5-Sy17X05e9o>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, zhang.xian@huawei.com, "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <db3546@att.com>, draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com, jon.hudson@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-04
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 11:38:31 -0000
Re-send with correct RTG-DIR address > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: 21 April 2016 12:35 > To: 'Stewart Bryant'; rtg-ads@ietf.org > Cc: RTG-DIR@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info- > exchange@tools.ietf.org; teas@ietf.org; Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com; > jon.hudson@gmail.com; zhang.xian@huawei.com; 'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A' > Subject: RE: RtgDir review of draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-04 > > Stewart, > > Many thanks for your time and kind words. > > Responses in line. > > Deborah, when in the process do you want to see an update? > > Cheers, > Adrian > > > Summary: > > I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be > resolved > > before publication. > > > > Comments: > > This is an exceptionally well written document that will serve community well in > > understanding this problem. > > > > The first two minor comments are in many ways optional, but I think addressing > > them would be appreciated by those new to the subject. > > > > Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > > > Minor Issues: > > > > In section 1.1.2 TE Metrics and TE Attributes, there appears to be no definition > of > > either term (either by reference of by value). A definition and in particular a > > distinction would be helpful to the reader less familiar with the subject. > > I think that you're right that some clarity could be added. The general description > of the combination of the two terms looks fine to me, but by presenting two > terms we do need to distinguish them and explain. I suspect that some examples > and a little more description will do the job. Mainly we need to characterise a TE > metric as a quantifiable value (including measurement) describing some property > of a link or node that can be used as part of TE routing or planning, while a TE > attribute is a wider term (i.e. including TE metric) that refers to any property or > characteristic of a link or node that can be used as part of TE routing or planning. > > > Regarding Section 1.1.8. Abstract Node or Virtual Node. It is unclear whether > these > > are synonyms, or if there is a distinction between them. > > Hmmm. During WG last call we were asked to add 1.1.8 to give a root for use of > these terms, although I chose to point at 3.5 and 4.2.2.1 for more details. But I > think I can add a distinction between the very similar terms. > > > Section 5.2 > > The text "(i.e., completely separate instances using different address)" is > > incomplete. I think that you have omitted the word "spaces". > > Yes. Thanks. > > > Nits: > > "2.4. Requesting Connectivity > > > > " This relationship between domains can be entirely under the control" > > > > I think that should be "The relationship" > > Ack > > > Section 6 the text "are arranged a set of small domains" I think should be > > "are arranged as a set of small domains" > > Ack > > > Section 10.1 para 3 duplicate word "the the" > > Ack
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review of draft-ietf-teas-in… Adrian Farrel