Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 29 October 2013 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B8511E8228 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.369, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fMVcscSRWve9 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy12-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy12-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [50.87.16.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8353A11E822E for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14145 invoked by uid 0); 29 Oct 2013 18:26:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy12.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2013 18:26:11 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=e0JxwmAV2iKK7KY72C9Fzp1U5HMi/6J+4JqmrCMmqnQ=; b=wpexlzi/4SzoBcIuRIW94sKFy98dZWtFgpBTcuGu1tYnKkBidkn4/C+IyLoyPvv9eq75HZeE9CDudnUCQXKMBUeho+ZMdICdc/dB1kjqmH1S3g29N5hM6mqnTtq081m9;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:52645 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1VbDzX-00059f-HK; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:26:11 -0600
Message-ID: <526FFDBB.4020504@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:26:03 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info@tools.ietf.org
References: <524AF9A9.3040006@labn.net> <5266E138.8080605@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <5266E138.8080605@labn.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:26:51 -0000

Authors,
	I have some comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info. Most are strictly
editorial. Note that I'm the document shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more
information.

- Please address my general comments on the WSON document set

- You say: " relatively static on the time scales of
   connection establishment."  I suspect you mean:
   " relatively static and independent of connection establishment."

- Your references to [Switch] seem almost normative in nature. I suspect
that this is not your intent as it is listed as an informative
reference.  Please revisit your references and ensure that the draft
does not depend on any informative references.  (Either change the text,
or move the reference to normative.)

- s/inputinput/input

- s/outputoutput/output

- Section 4.1: " ...  and path computation [Encode]."
  While a normative reference to [Encode] is certainly just fine, I
  reference is unclear in this context.

- Why say "potentially switched" vs just "switched"?  if "potentially"
doesn't add anything please drop it, otherwise please clarify.

- Section 4.2: SRNG
  I don't see SRNG in any other documents.  Am I missing it, is SRNG
used anywhere?

- Section 5: I found it hard to parse the following:
   As resources are the smallest identifiable unit of
   processing resource, one can group together resources into blocks if
   they have similar characteristics relevant to the optical system
   being modeled, e.g., processing properties, accessibility, etc.
  Do you perhaps mean?
   A resource is the smallest identifiable unit of
   allocation. One can group together resources into blocks if
   they have similar characteristics relevant to the optical system
   being modeled, e.g., processing properties, accessibility, etc.

-Section 5.1: States: " Note that except for <ResourcePoolState>
  all the other components of <ResourcePool> are relatively static."
  But the related definitions are:

   <ResourcePool> ::= <ResourceBlockInfo>...
   [<ResourceAccessibility>...] [<ResourceWaveConstraints>...]
   [<RBPoolState>] (section 5)

   <DynamicNodeInfo> ::=  <NodeID> [<ResourcePoolState>] (section 7.2)

   What's the intent here?

- Section 5.2: What is the asterisk "*" all about.

- Section 5.3.3 says
      <client-signal-list>::=[<GPID>]...
   should <client-signal-list> be <ClientSignalList> as defined in
   section 5.2?

- Section 5.3.4 repeats section 5.2.  replace:
  " as follows:

     <ProcessingCapabilities> ::= [<NumResources>]
     [<RegenerationCapabilities>] [<FaultPerfMon>] [<VendorSpecific>]"
  with "."

- Section 6.5: I found the following language confused:
   This allows for the
   definition of one additional link metric value for traffic
   engineering separate from the IP link state routing protocols link
   metric.
  How about:
   This allows for the
   identification of a data channel link metric value for traffic
   engineering that is separate from the metric used for
   path cost computation of the control plane.

- Section 6.6: Drop "(Wavelength)" from the title, this can be confused
with the "WSON" indication in section headings

- Section 6.6.: You just say (Wavelength) and leave it to the reader to
infer the relationship between it and a label. I suggest you make the
relationship explicit.

- Section 6.6.  I think you have a BNF problem here.  The BNF says
restriction parameters are always optional, but your text says that
there are requirements based on <RestrictionTypes>.  I think the BNF
needs to be aligned with the text and reflect the requirements.

- Section 7: You say " An example usage of this
   information in a WSON setting is given in [Shared]."

  References to URLs should be avoided (particularity when they aren't
  valid even at the time of publication, i.e., now).

That's it on this one,
Lou

On 10/22/2013 4:34 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> All,
> 	Given the recent draft submission deadline and only one comment being
> received to date, we'd like to extend the WG more time for review.
> 
> These drafts represent significant work by the authors and WG, so please
> review and let the WG know what you think (positive or negative)!
> 
> Please have all comments in by October 29.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> 
> On 10/1/2013 12:34 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> This mail begins working group last call on the WSON documents.  As
>> there are 6 documents in this set, the last call will be three weeks.
>> The documents included in the last call are:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-18
>> (Informational, IPR Disclosed)
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-11
>> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-21
>> (Standards Track)
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-05
>> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-12
>> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-06 (Standards
>> Track) Also has one open issue that will need to be resolved as part of
>> LC, see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/ticket/52.
>>
>> This working group last call ends on October 22.  Comments should be
>> sent to the CCAMP mailing list.  Please remember to include the
>> technical basis for any comments.
>>
>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is
>> ready for publication", are welcome!
>>
>> Please note that we're still missing some IPR statements.  Any
>> forthcoming publication request will be delayed by late IPR
>> statements/disclosures.
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Lou (and Deborah)
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
>