Subject: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-01

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 19:50:20 -0500

This draft is pretty close to ready. I am sending a marked-up copy with 
editorial nits directly to the authors. I have the following slightly 
more substantial remarks:

1. At the end of Section 3, just before the Section 3.1 heading, I 
suggest adding the sentence:
    "The following subsections expand on some of these points."

2. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 both suggest that flows requiring translation 
and other flows need separate routing, and Section 3.4 addresses this 
topic explicitly. Just to reduce the feeling of repetition while tying 
things together, Section 3.4 might refer to the previous two sections. 
For example, this sentence could be added to the beginning of Section 2.4:

    "The two previous sections made the point that for greater
     efficiency flows requiring translation should be distinguished
     from other flows. Thus many operators ..."

3. The first paragraph of Section 5.1 reads:

   "The MPLS/VPN CGN environment has been successfully integrated into
    real network environments utilizing existing network service delivery
    mechanisms.  It solves many issues related to provider based
    translation environments, while still being subject to problematic
    behaviours inherent within NAT."

That last phrase, "... while still being subject to problematic
behaviours inherent within NAT.", led me to expect mention of unsolved 
issues but none follows. Could you possibly mention a couple of those 
issues at the end of Section 5.2 after you list the positive points?

Tom Taylor