Subject: [PANRG] I-D Action: draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 21:46:33 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Aware Networking RG RG of the IRTF.

        Title           : Path Aware Networking: Obstacles to Deployment (A Bestiary of Roads Not Taken)
        Author          : Spencer Dawkins
	Filename        : draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07.txt
	Pages           : 35
	Date            : 2020-01-15

Abstract:
   At the first meeting of the Path Aware Networking Research Group, the
   research group agreed to catalog and analyze past efforts to develop
   and deploy Path Aware techniques, most of which were unsuccessful or
   at most partially successful, in order to extract insights and
   lessons for path-aware networking researchers.

   This document contains that catalog and analysis.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:58:44 +0900

Dear PANRGers,

> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-07

I actually did have some time this week to go through Med's comments.
Here's what you should see in the diff.

(Note that I had missed Med's comments on -05, so you might also look at
the -05/-07 diffs)

Med  provided his comments in MS Word and PDF, in these locations:

* pdf :
https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05-rev%20Med.pdf

* doc:
https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/raw/master/draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-05-rev%20Med.doc

My responses, the vast majority being "oh, yeah", follow.

   1. Med suggested "Path Aware Techniques" instead of "Path Aware
   Technologies". I made that change - I think I suggested the original term,
   anyway.
   2. Med also pointed out (correctly) that I was being excessively cute
   about capitalizing Path Aware in most/all cases, whether it was part of a
   proper noun or not. I agree.
   3. I clarified in the Introduction that we were talking about both
   non-adoption and adoption that was constrained by the issues that we are
   talking about in this document.
   4. Med asked for a short definition of "path aware networking". I had
   added a section about this in -06 at Theresa's request, but it was
   definitely needed.
   5. Med asked about adding a new Lesson to section 2, as "Some of the
   failed proposals require that the full path should be capable to support a
   new feature (e.g., resource reservation). An alternate approach to focus
   only on the segment where this is useful would suffice: for example, if
   signaling is done only with the access point better experience would be
   observed immediately without requiring in the full path compliance". I
   THOUGHT providing benefits during incremental deployment was captured in
   the existing lessons, but it's certainly not plainly stated. I paraphrased
   this suggestion in, in a new  Section 2.3 and updated Section 3 to include
   it as an Invariant.
   6. Med pointed out that what is now Section 2.2 and 2.5 are related, and
   (IMO) that includes what is now Section 2.3. What I was trying to get at,
   is that benefits for end users and operators aren't the same thing. Do
   these three subsections need refactoring?
   7. Med pointed out that routers aren't the only platforms with fast
   paths (and slow paths). I reflected this comment in the document.
   8. Med also provided editorial corrections.

Because 2.3 is completely new text, I'd like to call the working group's
attention to this subsection, and the characterization of this lesson in
Section 3. .

Please let me know what you think.

Best,

Spencer

---

From: Theresa Enghardt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:14:29 +0100

Hi,

>this suggestion in, in a new  Section 2.3 and updated Section 3 to

I think this makes sense as a lesson and it sounds like an Invariant to me as well.

Best,
Theresa