search

panrg / path-properties

A Vocabulary of Path Properties
Other
1 stars 3 forks source link

Rephrase and restructure introduction #20

Closed renghardt closed 4 years ago

renghardt commented 4 years ago

This addresses most comments in #14.

As a reference for architecture, we now refer to the questions draft, because that draft first what a path-aware network is. Then, our introduction now explains the structure of the draft: Terminology, classification of properties, then some examples of properties.

For the examples of properties, we have use cases to motivate them. As these use cases became rather long and were not really suitable to be bullet points anymore, I split them into subsections. Also, I reshuffled them, so "traffic policies" became "traffic configuration", because that's really what our examples are doing. I wanted to make the distinction between path selection and traffic configuration clear - path selection decides between different paths through the network, and then when a path has been selected, we can configure this path, which is traffic configuration. Therefore, the firewall example moved to "path selection".

Our old introduction contained a lot of text on classification of path properties. I kept this text, but moved it down after the terminology, because I think it fits better there. Later, we'll have to think more about this classification, e.g., the domain properties issue, but I'd say this is out of scope for this PR now. ;)

What do you think?

cyrill-k commented 4 years ago

I generally like the new structure more as it feels cleaner than before. Maybe we could consider moving the use case section after the terminology since we use expressions such as "path" in the use case section?

Our use case section grew quite large which might be a bit of an issue since we do not want to give the impression that we provide an exhaustive list of possible use cases for path-aware networks. But I think we should keep the text and ask during the next PANRG meeting what the audience thinks about this (it is easy to shorten these sections if necessary).

Regarding the classification, I'm in favour of removing the classification into domain properties and backbone properties and simply have dynamic/non-dynamic properties. But I agree that we should do this in another PR.

renghardt commented 4 years ago

Thanks for the review!

I moved the use cases below the terminology section because I agree that this should be a separate section and it works much nicer with our structure this way. The use cases section now includes the disclaimer that this is not an exhaustive list because new properties may become relevant, I think that sentence fits best here. I'll ask PANRG about the use case section at IETF 106 if we can get beyond the Terminology section. ;)

renghardt commented 4 years ago

Merged this so I can base another PR on it -- Let's continue the discussion there.