Subject: [I2nsf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:06:32 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the various abstains about this draft not appearing to have
archival value. I chose not to ballot "abstain" because I think it's best
to handle that issue at charter or adoption time rather than doing so
this close to the finish line. (I note that the WG charter explicitly
says that the WG may choose not to publish, so this is a borderline
case.) If there really are good reasons to expect archival value, it
would be helpful to include a paragraph early in the document describing
those reasons.

I also agree that this should be informational.

I have a few additional comments on the odd chance this draft
progresses:

-2:
--  B2B describes a business model. I don't see how that is useful for
IETF discussion unless it implies specific technical characteristics. If
it does, them please describe them.
Bespoke": In other usages, "bespoke" often implies positive thing, which
I don't think the draft intends. I think the work "customized" would
better fit the usage herein.

-3: "The "Customer-Provider" relationship may be between any two parties.
The parties can be in different firms or different domains of the same
firm."
There again seem to be implied business models here. Is it technically
relevant if organizations qualify as "firms"?

- 3.1.1:
-- Consider adding DMZ to the glossary
-- "Centralized or Distributed security functions" seems out of place.
The rest of the section describes kinds of security functions; this
describes the design of security functions.

- 3.2.1, first sentence: The second instance of "deploy" seems like a
strange usage. Should this be "use"?

-3.5, title: s/Difficulty/Difficult

-3.6: "SDN-inferred agility"
Should that be SDN "implied" or "conferred" agility?

- 4.2: 
-- "typically by means of Business- to-Business (B2B) communications."
Again, does B2B imply some technical characteristics of the
communication? Otherwise, how is this different than just
"communication"?
-- Figure 3: Please define or cite a definition for Evolved Packet
Core.

-7: Are there no privacy related requirements?