Hi Benjamin, Thank you for your review! > Reviewer: Benjamin Schwartz > Review result: Ready > This draft is clearly written (barring some minor sentence structure and word > choice issues) and covers the topic well. Thank you. > However, I do not see any value in publishing it as an RFC. As a "gap analysis", > its value was principally in motivating the formation of a working group (i.e. SAVNET) > and helping the participants to agree on their own terminology. This purpose has > already been achieved, and is not enhanced by publication. On the basis of the motivation for WG formation, this document further summarizes the cause of the problems and the design requirements for exploring future solutions. Specifically, we spent more than two years in discussions in the WG and had been improving the content based on discussions. Eventually, this document receives the support of many WG members. The next step for the WG is to design architecture and solutions that can meet the requirements. Therefore, we think it is valuable to publish this document as an RFC because this would help steer the group to focus on the relevant gap and make improvements in the right direction. > Publishing the document in its current form might even have negative value, > since the content will immediately be incorrect when > draft-ietf-savnet-inter-domain-architecture is published and the "gap" is > closed. I do not think the content will be incorrect. If the future solutions can meet the requirements, the problems of existing intra-domain SAV mechanisms will be addressed. This is exactly the value of this document:) > Nit: > > > it is difficult to require all access networks to deploy SAV simultaneously > > Please remove "simultaneously". The difficulty here is not in _synchronizing_ > the deployment; it is merely in achieving it. Thanks. We would like to remove "simultaneously". Best, Lancheng > -----Original Messages----- > From: "Benjamin Schwartz via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Send time:Wednesday, 01/22/2025 07:19:13 > To: secdir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-savnet-intra-domain-problem-statement.all@xxxxxxxx, last-call@xxxxxxxx, savnet@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [savnet] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-savnet-intra-domain-problem-statement-10 > > Reviewer: Benjamin Schwartz > Review result: Ready > > This draft is clearly written (barring some minor sentence structure and word > choice issues) and covers the topic well. However, I do not see any value in > publishing it as an RFC. As a "gap analysis", its value was principally in > motivating the formation of a working group (i.e. SAVNET) and helping the > participants to agree on their own terminology. This purpose has already been > achieved, and is not enhanced by publication. > > Publishing the document in its current form might even have negative value, > since the content will immediately be incorrect when > draft-ietf-savnet-inter-domain-architecture is published and the "gap" is > closed. > > My preference would be to fold this content into that draft, or retitle it > "Purpose of the SAVNET Architecture" and adjust the content to present an > explicitly historical note on why draft-ietf-savnet-inter-domain-architecture > was needed. > > Nit: > > > it is difficult to require all access networks to deploy SAV simultaneously > > Please remove "simultaneously". The difficulty here is not in _synchronizing_ > the deployment; it is merely in achieving it. > > > -- > savnet mailing list -- savnet@xxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to savnet-leave@xxxxxxxx -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
