Last Call Review of draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements-08
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
Reviewer: Dimitri Papadimitriou
Review Date: 28-02-2018
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Informational
I have some concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.
Readability should be improved: the document is not easy to read for people not mastering terms not used in their canonical/CS sense.
It may be appropriate to reconsider the title of this document since most requirements are qualitative/functional (very limited considerations about quantitative aspects) or alternatively clarify this point in the abstract.
Section 1: several terms are used without providing reference to their definition. Examples include "orchestration" (is it used as synonym of coordination -- defined in ACTN-FRAME), "collation", "hierarchical abstraction" (do authors refer to the well-defined notion of recursive abstraction ? and what is the minimum of #recursion levels to be supported/expected).
Section 1: the statement " Provision via a data model of a computation scheme..." is to be clarified: does this requirement imply that the "computational methods" must be using the same data model as the one used for network control/operation ?
Section 1: the document refers to various policies (= mapping from state to actions; hence, at several places the use of the term "policy" seems inadequate/refers to something else); more importantly, this raises the following question: what about detection and resolution of policy conflicts e.g. any requirement in terms of automation in the handling of run-time conflicts ?
Section 2.1: Clarify the relation between Req.1 and .3, it looks as if Req.1 is a very generic statement whose specifics are documented in Req.3
Section 2.1: Concerning objective functions document if the requirement implies that "any" of them would have to be supported or if a min.set of obj.functions have to be supported on a path and/or graph basis (if this min.set is unknown at this point in time mention it explicitly).
Section 2.1: Req.8 Would be appropriate to explicit the term " Trust domain verification" between which entities (ext/int to what ?), what this verification implies ?
Section 2.2: Req.1 VNS delete/modify/etc. but no "provisioning" action listed, any reason ?
Section 2.2: Req.3 concerning the " Alternative path computation" does it mean that an BGP alternate path would be satisfactory as long as connectivity is ensured ?
Section 2.2: Req.4 in the headline of the section the term restoration is distinguished from protection, in this requirement not; does it mean that for path protection there is no involvement besides end-points ? In Req.5 the " fast recovery/reroute" technique is being used instead. Suggestion is made here to stick to one terminology throughout the whole document.
Section 2.2: Req.5 specify for the so-called "Large-scale VNS operation" whether the answer to the operation is expected at the same level of granularity. Example: query all leaves of a tree is a single command but the requester could be in turn overloaded if 100k leaves reply individually.