Re: IESG evaluation draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The IESG approved the publication of 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05.txt as is.
>
> However, there were three minor non-blocking comments which might be
> worth considering:
>
> 1)
> [rhousley] [IN IESG DISCUSSION]
>   Should VoIP be discussed in this document?  There are usually QoS
>   issues associated with VoIP that deserve consideration.

I think that would be quite a substantial amount of work, so although
the comment is valid, I would recommend leaving it aside.

> 2)
> [hta] [IN IESG DISCUSSION] Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART
> Nit: Example Network B uses the word "external" twice with different 
> meanings; that's confusing...

To be precise, I wrote:

> >  Example Network B:
> >
> >  A bank running a large network supporting online
> >  transaction processing (OLTP) across a distributed
> >  multi-sited network, with access to a central database
> >  on an external network from the OLTP network.
> >
> >    - External connectivity not required.
>
> ...
>
> I can't quite reconcile "external network" and "external
> connectivity not required" - this needs a little clarification.

Maybe changing 'an external' to 'a different' would be enough,
and that can be done by the RFC-Ed.

   Brian

> 3)
> [mrw] [IN IESG DISCUSSION] My affiliation is wrong in this document:  
> s/ThinkMagic/ThingMagic.  Could be fixed in AUTH48 if at all.
>
> 3) is trivially fixed later on, so there's no need to worry about it
> now.  The question is whether it would make sense to consider which
> changes would be needed to fix 1) or 2) (or whether we just go on as
> is).  If the fixes are simple, these could be done as an RFC-editor
> note as well, without respinning the document.