Subject: [I2nsf] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:48:18 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-framework-08: 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-framework/

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

(1) I think there are some errors in Table 1, or perhaps there are just
formatting issues that have me confused. It looks like TCP, SCTP, DCCP, UDP,
and HTTP are listed under Layer 3. I can't tell if there is meant to be a
difference between header fields separated by slashes versus those separated on
different lines. There seems to be an extra column in front of the HTTP fields
-- what does that signify? Why is TRAM profile in particular included as an
example here?

(2) Tables 2-4 also seem to be specified in a significant amount of detail,
given that context and actions themselves are defined in detail in a different
individual draft. This makes it hard to understand the implications of some of
the fields. E.g., the "GPS coords" field -- whose GPS coords does this refer
to? It seems like the fields in these tables either need to be explained more,
or they should be removed.

(3) I'm not going to stand in the way of publication but it's not clear to me
why this document needs to be an RFC. Much of the content seems like a generic
narrative that describes how NSFs could work but doesn't really lay out any
concrete constraints about how they should work that would lead to greater
interoperability.