Subject: [OPSAWG] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:07:08 -0700

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2017-09-20
IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-20
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC

This is well written. Hopefully it will help avoid, or at least shorten, rehash
of arguments about choosing the right level of abstraction for service models.

I don't have text to suggest, but please look at the first bullet of section 5.
The explanation here was less helpful than the other bullets. Demonstrating the
confusion due to the reuse of the word "service" doesn't help clarify the
confusion. I wonder if there's more conversation that hasn't been captured that
this paragraph is alluding to.

(nit) I also suggest raising the level of abstraction in the security
consideration section where it currently lists authorization, authentication,
and encryption by speaking initially to what, and calling the how out as a
detail.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:34:21 +0100

Thanks Robert,

> this paragraph is alluding to.

Yes, the paragraph is not as clear as it could be. We were trying to distinguish
between different uses of the word "service" where we are primarily interested
in connectivity services achieved by manipulating the network resources, and not
value-added services provided using other resources (compute, storage, ...) that
are reachable over the network.

I have tried to make this a bit clearer.

> and encryption by speaking initially to what, and calling the how out as a

OK

Adrian