The Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 05.09.2013
I-D name: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results
Received your Request dated 04.09.2013
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The reviewer supports the draft subject to amendments. Overall the
survey is not easy to be used as source of information related to such
technology users, but easier as source of information related to
respondings of companies.
AB> I prefer the title to start as: A Survey of ..........
Abstract> This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to
determine implementation trends. The survey and results is presented
herein.
AB> How did the survey determine implementations related to users (are
they general known or uknown or chosen by authors...etc). What kind of
results?
AB> the abstract starts interesting but ends making the results not
clear what it was (good, reasonable, expected, positive, had
conclusions..etc)?
AB> The draft states that it has no conclusion, because it is not
intended for that but to help in knowing results to help in other
future drafts. However, the abstract mentions that the survey
conducted to determine (not understood how to determine without
conclusions or analysis).
Introduction>
In order to assess the best approach to address the observed
interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit
feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding
implementation. This document presents the survey and the
information returned by the user community who participated.
AB> the introduction needs to show the importance of the survey, or
what makes such decision from the WG (i.e. seems like the WG has not
cover all types of community, not sure)?
AB> Why did the WG decide the survey by using questionnair?
AB> suggest amending> the document presents the questionnair form
questions and information returned ......
Sections 1.1 1.2 and 1.3>
......questions based on direction of the WG chairs......
There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity
requirements in
Section 3. The responding companies are listed below in Section 2.1.
AB> Why were thoes methodologies and why that way of quetions chosen
for this survey? The answer to this is important for the document
(informational) and future drafts.
AB> The reason of the survey's methodology should be mentioned in
clear section, as the athors' opinion.
Section 1.2> Form>
Why the form did not make security consideration related to
implementations in the form questions? which then may be used in
security section.
Results section 2>
AB> are difficult to read or find related to section 1.2.
AB> Usually the section mixes between what was returned and what was
given. It is prefered to have two separate sections as 1 (what was
given including the form), and what was returned as results.
Regards
AB
On 9/4/13, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to
Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:
- 'The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
Implementation Survey Results'
<draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt> as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-09-23. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
Most pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate
the use of the Control Word (CW) to carry information essential to
the emulation, to inhibit Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior, and
to discriminate Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
from Pseudowire (PW) packets. However, some encapsulations treat the
Control Word as optional. As a result, implementations of the CW,
for encapsulations for which it is optional, vary by equipment
manufacturer, equipment model and service provider network.
Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports
three Control Channel (CC) types and multiple Connectivity
Verification (CV) Types. This flexibility has led to reports of
interoperability issues within deployed networks and associated
drafts to attempt to remedy the situation. This survey of the PW/
VCCV user community was conducted to determine implementation trends.
The survey and results is presented herein.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.