Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-01

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:39:50 -0700

Hi all,

Here's some comments on the current version of the draft, through section 4.3:

- The draft needs some proofreading.  I'll pass some editorial comments along to the editors separately.  More proofing is probably required.  More help would be most welcome.

- In the definition of composite link, the intent here is still slightly unclear.  Are we defining a composite link to be either a "Multiple Parallel Link" or a "Multi-layer Component Link"?  

- Aren't all component links inherently multi-layer?  Don't they all have a physical and logical layer?  What's the purpose of defining a multi-layer component link?

- In the definition of a component link, do we want to say anything about atomicity?  Sequentiality?

- In the definition of a flow, isn't the defining property that it must remain ordered?  We maintain that ordering by constraining them to a sequential link.

- Section 4.1, FR#1: Since SLAs are sometimes confidential and generally inconsistent, do we really want to define our requirements in terms of them?  Don't we just mean a provider specified service level?  Same comment in FR#5 and elsewhere.

- Section 4.1, FR#2: In the worst case, when a cross-section of the network fails, doesn't the network end up being disconnected?  How is restoration supposed to work?  I suspect the intent here was something different.

Regards,
Tony