Subject: [Anima] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:00:25 -0700

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: 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-reference-model/

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

In discussing the Autonomic Control Plane (section 4.6), it says "is
implemented as an overlay network". "Overlay" in routing documents (e.g. GMPLS)
refers to an abstraction of the underlying data layer. The rtgdir reviewer
(Chris) was also confused on the use of "overlay". Is your intention for the
control plane to be independent of the topology of the data plane layer? For
GMPLS, where the control plane and data plane are clearly separated, the
control and data planes are said to be "decoupled" (control plane neighbors may
not necessarily be data plane neighbors). Suggest not to use "overlay" if your
intention is for it to be decoupled. If the intention is for it to reflect an
(abstracted) connectivity of the data plane layer than could use '"overlay"
though it would be helpful to define what is meant.

Please review Chris's other comments.