Subject: [nwcrg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:37:04 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs-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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-nwcrg-nwc-ccn-reqs/

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

One high level comment (which isn't anything that would prevent publishing or
would actually need to be addressed before publishing): For me the motivation
why NC is specifically beneficial for ICN is not clear. It rather seems to me
that NC would be kind of equally beneficial to any other kind of network
interaction scheme. Section 6 even notes that a base principe in ICN is that a
"forwarder or producer cannot initiatively inject unrequested data" which seems
actually to make the application of NC (where N stands for network) quite
complicated. The approaches and consideration presented are fine and make
sense, I'm just saying the synergy of specifically combining these two
techniques is less clear to me.

One editorial point: For the ICN terminology you refer to RFC8793. For NC you
have a rather lengthly list with terms which not necessarily are all used.
Wouldn't it make sense to similarly refer to RFC8406 instead?

Nits:
- sec 7.2: "would be effective, an effective deployment approach" -> "would be
an effective deployment approach"? - Maybe spell out CS on first occurrence.