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

Please consider the comments from the rtg-dir review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/HSmtr7a1fK4LDDHYyiDhlNQ_ccU/?qid=86e48faaab41ffc8b1d3e45802b85d0b

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.

Thanks for addressing the SecDir review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/IQlNrjC7dr_J2jtdFkuidcvLTLs