Skip to main content

Service Models Explained
draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-05

Yes

(Benoît Claise)
(Warren Kumari)

No Objection

(Adam Roach)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04) Unknown

                            
Warren Kumari Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04) Unknown

                            
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-10-11 for -04) Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-10-11 for -04) Unknown
Please consider comments from the Routing Area Directorate review.

I think this document is useful as there are many "service definitions" in the industry. As the document says, the distinction is dependent on the definer, and that is ok. This document scopes IETF's use of the term. It would help clarify the document's intent if repeated this more than the one sentence in section 6.4.

As the Routing Area Directorate reviewer (Dave) noted, there are multiple places which could be improved and it is why I'm a "no objection" vs. a "yes" as these may seem small, but they do change the tone of the document, especially as this document will hopefully be used by other SDOs to understand our work, e.g.:

- Section 5 on Possible causes of confusion: "The confusion arises not only because of the use of the word "service" in both cases, but also because network operators may offer both types of service to their customers." This sentence is very confusing:-) It infers confusion is caused by the operator on the use of their term for a service "but ..because network operators may offer both". But as the document itself says - service depends on the context. As Dave says, don't confuse the reader further. Just delete this sentence and say these are different types of services, it's not the use of the term "service" which is confusing:-)
- Section 6.4 on MEF Architecture "Thus, it may be impractical to fit IETF service models into the MEF Forum LSO architecture." Why are you pre-judging the applicability? Dave noted this also. Suggest delete this sentence. And previous sentence - IETF's work..typically smaller offering/s/IETF's work .. is a different scope. I don't think IETF's work is a "smaller offering", it's just different. The sentence infers don't use IETF's work, use MEF Forum's if want a complete package.
- And many more examples in Dave's careful review.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-10-11 for -04) Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown

                            
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04) Unknown