Subject: [netmod] AD review: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:26:08 +0100

Dear all,

I know that this draft is not yet on my table, but in order to speed up 
the process, I read v3.

- Editorial: I see many instances of (see term) or (see terms).
This doesn't add any value IMO.
If there are some chance for misinterpretation of those terms, 
capitalize the terms specified in the terminology section.

- Any reason why the "backwards compatibility" (section 3) is not 
numbered as a requirement in section 4?  I.e. a new requirement 5. Or is 
it because it's a special requirement?
Numbering all the requirements might ease the comparison of the 3 
different proposed solutions.

- There is a requirement in asynchronous configuration operations 
definition:
        Once applied, there MUST be a mechanism for the client
        to determine when the request has completed processing and
        whether the intended config is now fully effective or there are
        any errors from applying the configuration change, which could be
        from an asynchronous notification or via a client operation.

Why isn't it a numbered requirement in section 4?

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:30:53 +0000

[As a contributor]

Hi Benoit,

Thank you for your proactive AD review.  Below are my responses to your comments.

>capitalize the terms specified in the terminology section.

I removed “(see term[s])” from my local copy.  I view this as an editorial change.

>different proposed solutions.

FWIW, the Backwards Compatibility section was not initially incorporated into the Requirements section because it seemed more like an implicit/generic requirement, not a solution-specific requirement.   That said, I have to agree that it would help reviews.  For instance, when trying to determine how a solution satisfies each requirement, it would be easier to have “Backwards Compatibility” folded into the Requirements “tree”, rather than having to call it out special.  So, if no one objects, I will make this change tomorrow.

>Why isn't it a numbered requirement in section 4?

Good point, it does read like a requirement more so than a term.   I note that requirement 2-B has overlap with the "or via a client operation" clause, so I think it makes sense to move this text into requirement 2-B.  Again, if no one objects, I will make this change tomorrow.

Thanks again,
Kent