Subject: [spring] Deborah Brungard's Abstain on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-08: (with COMMENT)

From: "Deborah Brungard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:27:30 -0700

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-08: Abstain

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my Discuss and improving Section 3.3. I still find
the various comparisons on using a distributed approach vs. a centralized
controller as lacking in accuracy and a poor justification for SPRING.
Just say simply you do not want to use a distributed control plane. This
is not the first time that IETF had this requirement for one of their
data planes.

I won't block publication, so my "Abstain" position.