Subject: [spring] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Terry Manderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 19:11:37 -0800

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for putting in the effort in writing this. Firstly, I concur with
Benoit's observation about text taken from the charter and laid in to the
document verbatim. That tends not to help the reader and a large
assumption is made that the reader understands the concerns of source
based routing for partitioning VPNs, fast re-route, TE, signalling, and
so on. Please consider rewriting the intro and other parts to help with
understanding (for example in 3.2 Fast Reroute; microploop avoidance is
listed as a requirement, however a sensible coverage of microloop
avoidance is not found in the draft, nor in the nearby referenced
spring-resiliency-use-cases). This also leaves me scratching my head as
to why we don't see this document and the resiliency-use-cases (and
others) at the same time when they are aligned? Or restructure the
document to be more informative on these facets in the first case.

Can the document also be explicit that while the SPRING problem/solution
space needs to be cognisant of autonomous systems that share
policy/interoperate across boundaries the primary port of call is in
regard to the IGP. This will certainly aide in restraining everyone (esp.
the reader) from trying to boil the 'internet ocean'. (this at least
should be easy to address :)