Subject: Re: REVISED Last Call: <draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt> (The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementation Survey Results) to Informational RFC

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 04:24:18 +0200

The Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Date: 05.09.2013
I-D name: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results
Received your Request dated 04.09.2013
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The reviewer supports the draft subject to amendments. Overall the
survey is not easy to be used as source of information related to such
technology users, but easier as source of information related to
respondings of companies.

AB> I prefer the title to start as: A Survey of ..........

Abstract> This survey of the PW/VCCV user community was conducted to
determine implementation trends. The survey and results is presented
herein.

AB> How did the survey determine implementations related to users (are
they general known or uknown or chosen by authors...etc). What kind of
results?
AB> the abstract starts interesting but ends making the results not
clear what it was (good, reasonable, expected, positive, had
conclusions..etc)?
AB> The draft states that it has no conclusion, because it is not
intended for that but to help in knowing results to help in other
future drafts. However, the abstract mentions that the survey
conducted to determine (not understood how to determine without
conclusions or analysis).

Introduction>
In order to assess the best approach to address the observed
interoperability issues, the PWE3 working group decided to solicit
feedback from the PW and VCCV user community regarding
implementation.  This document presents the survey and the
information returned by the user community who participated.

AB> the introduction needs to show the importance of the survey, or
what makes such decision from the WG (i.e. seems like the WG has not
cover all types of community, not sure)?
AB> Why did the WG decide the survey by using questionnair?
AB> suggest amending> the document presents the questionnair form
questions and information returned ......

Sections 1.1 1.2 and 1.3>
......questions based on direction of the WG chairs......
There were seventeen responses to the survey that met the validity
requirements in
Section 3.  The responding companies are listed below in Section 2.1.

AB> Why were thoes methodologies and why that way of quetions chosen
for this survey? The answer to this is important for the document
(informational) and future drafts.

AB> The reason of the survey's methodology should be mentioned in
clear section,  as the athors' opinion.

Section 1.2> Form>
Why the form did not make security consideration related to
implementations in the form questions? which then may be used in
security section.

Results section 2>
AB> are difficult to read or find related to section 1.2.
AB> Usually the section mixes between what was returned and what was
given. It is prefered to have two separate sections as 1 (what was
given including the form), and what was returned as results.

Regards
AB

On 9/4/13, The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to
> Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:
> - 'The Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
>    Implementation Survey Results'
>   <draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results-02.txt> as Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-09-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    Most pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) encapsulations mandate
>    the use of the Control Word (CW) to carry information essential to
>    the emulation, to inhibit Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior, and
>    to discriminate Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
>    from Pseudowire (PW) packets.  However, some encapsulations treat the
>    Control Word as optional.  As a result, implementations of the CW,
>    for encapsulations for which it is optional, vary by equipment
>    manufacturer, equipment model and service provider network.
>    Similarly, Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) supports
>    three Control Channel (CC) types and multiple Connectivity
>    Verification (CV) Types.  This flexibility has led to reports of
>    interoperability issues within deployed networks and associated
>    drafts to attempt to remedy the situation.  This survey of the PW/
>    VCCV user community was conducted to determine implementation trends.
>    The survey and results is presented herein.
>
>
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-impl-survey-results/ballot/
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>
>
>

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:21:48 -0400

Abdussalam,

Many thanks for your review and comments on the draft. I have some answers
inline.

> Received your Request dated 04.09.2013

Andy> The draft is reporting the results of the survey, rather than being
the survey, so the title couldn't start as you suggested. A possibility
could be "The Results of a Survey on Pseudowire (PW) & Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementations", but I think the existing
title is more concise.

> they general known or uknown or chosen by authors...etc). What kind of

Andy> The survey was of service providers deploying pseudowires and VCCV.
The "users", in this case, are service providers.

> conclusions or analysis).

Andy> It wasn't the job of the people conducting the survey to draw
conclusions from the results, it was for them to report the results so that
the working group could collectively draw conclusions in their ongoing
work. At the time, the WG needed information on which combinations of PW
and VCCV options were actually in use, and the survey was used to collect
that information.

> AB> Why did the WG decide the survey by using questionnair?

Andy> The part of the Introduction on page 3 provides the background,
rationale, and importance of the survey. We used a questionnaire as that
form of survey is easiest for the respondents and allowed us to use
SurveyMonkey to conduct the survey.

> questions and information returned ......

Andy> We could change the sentence to say "This document presents the
survey questionnaire and the information returned by the user community who
participated."

> (informational) and future drafts.

Andy> While the survey questions were originally suggested by the WG
chairs, they were written by the survey authors and reviewed by the WG
prior to the collection of results. We could add that if you like.

> implementations in the form questions? which then may be used in

Andy> Because security information wasn't the subject of the survey.

> given including the form), and what was returned as results.

The questions are in section 1.2, and the results are in section 2.

> AB

Thanks again,
Andy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 00:00:08 +0200

Thanks Andrew, I am happy to see a survey draft, I never seen one
before in IETF, however, if there was a survey done before in IETF, it
will be interesting to mention that if you think necessary related.

> Connectivity Verification (VCCV) Implementations", but I think the existing

Yes that was my aim, thanks,
> The "users", in this case, are service providers.

ok, if described in the document, and how were they selected, is it on
there work volume basis, or etc.
> and VCCV options were actually in use, and the survey was used to collect

Ok, the WG needs information, but if I still remember, the document
does not state/define such need to match the survey.

> SurveyMonkey to conduct the survey.

The questionnaire method has advantages and disadvantages, so if on
section mentions the result validity in linked to method, I think the
reader will know how much he can depend on such results.
> survey questionnaire and the information returned by the user community who

my language may not be perfect, but I agree that amending it to show
survey method and method of result collection.
> prior to the collection of results. We could add that if you like.

I think that is an important information, because the WG is part of
the community, not sure if you have service providers respondent which
are joined in the WG, if so then that information is important also,
even if there is no respondant in the WG participating mentioning that
is important also.
> Andy> Because security information wasn't the subject of the survey.

I thought the subject is implementation and interoperability of such
technology, therefore, security is always important subject for users.
However, if the survey does not want the security, mentioning that in
one section will show that it was out of scope (if I remember the
security related to implementations of users was not mentioned as out
of scope).
> The questions are in section 1.2, and the results are in section 2.

In section 2 you mention many things that you have given to
respondants but that is not a result, what you give is a survey
method, but the respondants actions is the result. So I suggest to
take any information of your survey from the result section 2.

Thanking you,

AB

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 09:23:53 -0400

Abdussalam,

Thanks again, following IETF last call I'll discuss actions to take on the
draft with the IESG.

Cheers,
Andy