Subject: [Anima] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 13:12:55 -0700

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12: No Objection

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-anima-grasp/

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

The comparison text to routing protocols is outdated as ignores TE
which can support any link/node attribute desired (bandwidth,
availability, latency, etc.), discovery, bidirectional negotiation for
use, and
autoconfiguration (e.g. RFC 5340). When first discussing automatic
networks, it may have been useful to compare with routing, as at a
very high level view, it may look similar, but I think it is no longer
relevant, and very confusing for a routing person. Suggest instead of a
"I'm more complex than you" approach, remove these paragraphs.

A few minor edits will fix.

Suggest to remove the first paragraph of Section 2.2. Or edit:
1. links are no longer simple: "consider simple link"/s/"consider link"
2. Delete from "nodes need a consistent, although partial, view of the
network topology in order for the routing algorithm to converge.  Also,
routing is mainly based on simple information synchronization between
peers, rather than on bi-directional negotiation." I think what you want
to
infer by "partial" is for a protocol instance/region. But there is
support today
for multi-layer and multi-region networks. And convergence scale is
implementation. But none of this is relevant to anima so best is to
delete vs.
trying to fix.

Appendix E
Remove the paragraph on routing or preface with "Early routing
protocols.."
And the paragraph on RSVP is really not relevant for this comparison.
Unless
want to edit, as RSVP-TE does do "discovery".

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 16:21:53 +1200

On 24/05/2017 08:12, Deborah Brungard wrote:
...
> Suggest to remove the first paragraph of Section 2.2.  

I agree.

> Or edit:

I agree.

> And the paragraph on RSVP is really not relevant for this comparison.

I think it is, because RSVP for IntServ really does negotiate a QoS spec
along the path.

> want to edit, as RSVP-TE does do "discovery".

Not quite in the same sense, though. On balance it's a bit irrelevant
to the point.

Thanks!
   Brian