NAOPpag Subcommittee

["D'Angelo, Cas (Samuel)" <>]

I concur with Michael's opinion about the title and purpose statement.  With 
the changes he suggests below, I endorse the report.

________________________________________
From: 

 
<>
 on behalf of Michael Sinatra 
<>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:07 PM
To: 

Subject: Re: Fwd: PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation Report

I talked to Linda on the phone yesterday and indirectly talked to Chris
R. about some comments I had and they suggested that I post them to the
list.

I read the report again this morning, and I have two comments: One major
and one minor.

The minor comment is on page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which
actually starts on page 4).  That paragraph makes a compelling case for
keeping TRCPS and R&E separate, but at the end it says that "Internet2
will continue to maintain a logical separation of the two networks in
the near future."  "Near future" isn't well defined, and I would suggest
that we either put a time limit on it (keeping in mind that there is a
24-month notification timeframe) or we use another phrase ("foreseeable
future" or "medium term") that better describes the timeframe.  (In
Internet parlance, "near future" could mean something like 3 months.)

The major comment is this: The report appears to be written by the Layer
3 Community Group, directing the I2 engineering staff to do a bunch of
detailed things regarding network consolidation.  See, for example, the
title, "Layer3 Community Group Report: Consolidating TR-CPS and R&E."
The document then starts off with "This document is meant to outline the
steps and policies Internet2 will implement in response to the Future
Peering Committee's...."

The key word there is "will."  Is this will in the sense of "here's what
I will do; is that ok?" or is it will in the sense of "you will [shall]
do this according to our recommendations"?  I think we need to be clearer.

First off, I recall the origin of this report to be from I2/IU
engineering *to* the L3 Community Group for review, input, and consent.
 I still think that is the purpose here, and I think we should better
reflect that this report originated among I2/IU technical staff and is
being presented to the L3CG and augmented by that group.

Second, if one reads, as I easily did, the report as directing the I2
staff to perform the consolidation in a certain manner, then I would be
uncomfortable with having the L3CG take such a hands-on approach, and I
would not endorse such an approach.  I may be in the minority here, but
I even read the Future Peering Committee's report as advisory--a set of
recommendations that I2 staff can implement at their discretion.  For
example, we tend to assume consolidation leads to cost savings, but
consolidation can also concentrate complexity inside a smaller system,
which can reduce reliability and actually increase costs.  It's up to
the I2 staff to determine at which point the marginal costs of a
consolidation activity outweigh the marginal gains.

If we read the current report as a report of the staff saying "here's
how we interpret the FPC's recommendation to allow for consolidation,
does the L3CG concur?" then I think the report is reasonable, with one
caveat.  The caveat is that we should give the I2 staff an escape clause
if it turns out that there are unforeseen costly obstacles to completing
the full consolidation.  I think there is some wiggle room in the
detailed bullet points, but we may want to include a certain amount of
discretionary authority in an overall summary of the activities.
However, I do not think this in itself is a barrier to my endorsing the
document.

I would recommend that the title of the report be changed to reflect
that it is a report or proposal by the I2/IU engineering staff, to the
L3CG (or to the NAOPpag with the advice and consent of the L3CG); and
that a few sentences be added (or changed) to the "Purpose" section to
better reflect origins.  For example, the first sentence(s) could read:
"This document is intended to outline the steps and policies that the
Internet2 engineering team have developed in response to (one or more
of) the Future Peering Committee's recommendations for the TR-CPS
service.  The document has been reviewed and augmented by members of the
Layer3 Community Group, which includes several members of the previous
Future Peering Committee, and the Layer3 Community Group endorses the
plan of action developed by Internet2 staff and outlined in this
document."  Note that the second sentence could actually replace the
*last* sentence in the "Purpose" section.

I apologize for the lateness of the comments, but I did discuss this
with others and I even offered to keep my mouth shut, but folks I talked
to felt that it would be useful for me to make these comments.

Thanks for reading through this long message.

michael

On 4/15/15 3:56 AM, Linda Roos wrote:
> Dear Layer 3 Community Group,
> We still would like to have your endorsement of this report as
> representing our conversations and including all of your
> perspectives/remarks. Please let me know by *COB on Thursday, April 16*.
>
> __ I endorse the report
> __ I have additional comments to incorporate
>
> We want to provide a final report to provide to the NAOPpag with
> sufficient time for them to review prior to their 4/27 meeting.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *Linda Roos 
>> <
>>  
>> <mailto:>>
>> *Subject: * *PLEASE REVIEW: Layer3 Consolidation Implementation Report*
>> *Date: *April 8, 2015 at 11:07:53 AM EDT
>> *To: 
>> *"
>> <mailto:>"
>> <
>> <mailto:>>
>>
>> Dear Layer 3 Community Group,
>> Thank you for your participation in this group and for your input to
>> the final report.  Chris Robb has incorporated the comments received
>> and addressed issues raised in the discussions.  Attached, for your
>> final review and approval, are the marked-up copy of the report as
>> well as a clean copy.  After we have endorsement from everyone in the
>> group, we will take the report to the NAOPpag.  We are asking that you
>> indicate via return email message that you endorse the report (or
>> articulate any additional comments that you may have).  Please
>> indicate your endorsement by COB on Monday, April 13.  Let me know
>> what questions you have. Thanks.
>> linda
>>