Many thanks, Rich. In line. All changes are in the buffer waiting for the gates to re-open on the 24th. Cheers, Adrian > Sorry this is a day late. Not a problem, and the usefulness of the review far outweighs the timing. > I found section 1.1 a little hard to follow. I'm not sure why, and > I have no recommendations to make. Hmmm. Yes, it is probably a bit "academic" or didactic in its approach. Maybe it is also 20 years stilted? If I read it out loud, I can hear the original author's voice 😊 That said, short of throwing it all out and rewriting it, I don't see an easy fix. > Consider adding definitions of "ingress node" and "egress node" to 1.4 Consider it. (And made the additions.) > Sec 2.1, maybe change the first sentence to add "...includes the following > sub-contexts:" Yup > "the ability of the network administrators to translate policies into network > configurations." Nice to see the human aspect mentioned. We aim to please. > Sec 2.3, "A network-wide view of the topology is also a must for offline > planning" Presumably not the WHOLE network; maybe add clarification? Oh! Well: when is a network not a network? When we came up with, "The Internet is a network of networks," we were being very clever and setting ourselves up for confusion. Actually, it was for this reason that the PCE work started talking about a "network domain" or more loosely a "domain" [RFC4655] So, I think that the text, as written, is correct, but could be clarified. The point is that to achieve correct offline planning across a network, or some part of a network, there needs to be a view of the whole of that network or that part of the network. Changing the text as: OLD A network-wide view of the topology is also a must for offline planning. NEW Offline planning requires a full view of the topology of the network or partial network that is being planned. END > Sec 4.1, do you need/want definitions or references for STT and ALB methods? Yeah, references are good. STT is RFC 6601 ALB is ITU-T E.360.1 > Sec 5.1.2.3, To a customer, a slice looks like ... "with additional information > about the level of service required between endpoints" s/required/provided/ ? No, this is "required". I mean, it should also be "provided": but the customer asks for the SLA and is hopeful that it will be delivered. But this can be polished as: OLD From a customer's perspective an IETF Network Slice looks like a VPN connectivity matrix with additional information about the level of service required between endpoints. NEW From a customer's perspective, an IETF Network Slice looks like a VPN connectivity matrix with additional information about the level of service that the customer requires between the endpoints. END > Sec 5.1.3.1.1 typo's "Exampls" and "netrock" Ack > Sec 5.1.3.12 space before colon and while you're there, maybe s/;/, or/ And > the "four types" described should be an unnumbered list or some such. Ack > Sec 6, I was surprised ... Just trying to keep you awake. > ... to see the definitions of functional/non-functional be > in a different order from the sections that followed. Maybe a sentence at the > end explaining why. "This document first summarizes the non-functional > requirements, and covers the functional requirements in the following > subsections." Something like that included. > In 6.1, is the ordering of attributes arbitrary? Could/should it be made > alphabetical? Yeah, I *think* it is arbitrary. That is, I can't recall any discussion of why they are in this order. > In 6.5, typo "conforma" Ack > In 6.6.2, should "1+1" be "1:1" ? Apparently not, since 1+1 is not the same as > 1:1 This should be mentioned. Some clarity added. > In 6.7, "Networks are often arranged in layers" Should arranged by > implemented? What about Ogres (a little Shrek Joke, > https://youtu.be/-FtCTW2rVFM?t=43) I'm worried about how long you spent searching for that. Or, worse, that you already knew where to find it. > Sec 8, "taken over a lot of" stuck out to me as rather informal. "assumed" > "Some other > southbound interface" What's a southbound interface? Oh, yes! One of my hot buttons and I missed it! Thanks. Although the term is widely used, it is also not a functional description and is subjectively relative. Replaced with "configuration and management" > "such as a multi-national" add "enterprise" Not so happy about this suggestion. The "such as" is aiming for a few indicative suggestions. I fear that "enterprise" is often interpreted as the antithesis of a geographically widespread network. So adding it here may distract the reader. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
