[Sdnp] updated SDN problem statement draft

[Ping Pan]

Thanks! Got an editor. This is what you get when typing between design
review meetings... Sorry about that!

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Anton Ivanov <
anton.ivanov at kot-begemot.co.uk> wrote:

> On 13/03/12 13:58, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>
>>        Please review and send us comments/feedback.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-pan-sdn-dc-problem-**
>> statement-and-use-cases-02<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pan-sdn-dc-problem-statement-and-use-cases-02>
>>
>>        --Tom
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> SDNP mailing list
>> SDNP at lucidvision.com
>> http://lucidvision.com/**mailman/listinfo/sdnp<http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp>
>>
>>
>>
> Page 5 - migrate, not "mirage" in 3rd paragraph. A few other language
> niggles on that page as well. I will try to get around to send a proper
> edit set later this week.
>
> Page 9, paragraph 7. "may", not will. It will if it needs to. If it can
> re-route cleanly, why should it bother telling that to applications?
>
> Suggested improvement to use cases - they will look "leaner", "cleaner"
> and cause fewer arguments if they start with an intro which maps out the
> semantics - what is the Application (in the SDN sense) in each particular
> case, who talks to the controller, who arbitrates, etc.
>
> Brgds,
>
> A.
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> SDNP mailing list
> SDNP at lucidvision.com
> http://lucidvision.com/**mailman/listinfo/sdnp<http://lucidvision.com/mailman/listinfo/sdnp>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lucidvision.com/pipermail/sdnp/attachments/20120313/9ab90d92/attachment.htm>