Subject: [L3sm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-18: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:42:02 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-18: 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-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model/

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

This is a nicely readable document, especially given its size. I just
have a few minor comments:

- There are a number of uses of MAY that seem more like statements of
fact than permission to do something. Some of these take the form of "MAY
decide" or "MAY want" that might be more appropriate if reformulated
along the lines of "MAY do":
-- 5.6.3, last paragraph: "Other parameters like the requested
svc-input-bandwidth, svc-output-
   bandwidth MAY help to decide the access type to be used."
-- 5.6.7, last paragraph: "Note that a service provider MAY decide..."
-- 5.11.6, last paragraph: "...user MAY decide..."
-- 5.13.1, first paragraph: "...a customer MAY want to..."
-- 7, 2nd paragraph: "The management system MAY be modular..." and "...
the component...MAY be different."

- 14.2: As currently used, I think the references to restconf and to
RFC6536 should be normative.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 22:38:29 +0100

Ah, shucks, you take all of the anthropomorphism out of it :-)

All comments seem reasonable.
Thanks,
Adrian