Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-13
review-ietf-teas-actn-framework-13-opsdir-lc-bradner-2018-04-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-04-30
Requested 2018-04-16
Other Reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -11 by Bruno Decraene (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Peter Yee
Review State Completed
Reviewer Scott Bradner
Review review-ietf-teas-actn-framework-13-opsdir-lc-bradner-2018-04-29
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/ucfhd3HQfii45SUFe5BF2n9WhlE
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 14)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2018-04-29
Review completed: 2018-04-29

Review
review-ietf-teas-actn-framework-13-opsdir-lc-bradner-2018-04-29

I did an OPS-DIR review of Framework for Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-13).
As a framework document rather than a technical specification this document does not have any direct operational issues though the framework is for a technology that is "all operations." With that in mind I did not see any particular operational worry other than the overall complexity of the solution.

I will defer to Bruno Decranene's review for his detailed listing of nits. 

My only real comment is a meta one - I generally question the likelihood of widespread use of a system of this level of multi-player complexity in environments where it is reasonably easy to throw bandwidth at this class of problem.  

That said, I see no reason to not publish this as an Informational RFC just in case the thought that went into this could be useful to others or, maybe, if the use of the technology itself proves to be more cost effective than adding bandwidth.