Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-05

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cyril,

Thanks for your thorough review the draft. I concur with Giovanni on the comments. 

I have some comments in-line. 

Regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:51 PM
To: Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
Cc: CCAMP; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-05

Hi Cyril,

thx for careful review, pls see inline

On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:20 , "Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> Dear authors,
> 
> I have the following comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-05:
> 
> Comment 1:
> The document considers bidirection RB set and limit 2 RBInformation per hop.  However per RFC3473 section 8.1.1 and RFC3471, using different interface id for the upstream and downstream direction. The current definition does not support that.
> The following change would allow it.
> Section 4.2
> 
> OLD:
> "If more than two objects are encountered, two
>   MUST be processed and the rest SHOULD be ignored."
> 
> NEW:
> "If more than two objects per direction are encountered, two
>   MUST be processed and the rest SHOULD be ignored."
> 

GM> ok

> Section 4
> 
> OLD:
> "The usage of <WSON Processing> object for the bidirectional case is
>   the same as per unidirectional. When an intermediate node uses
>   information from this object to instruct a node about wavelength
>   regeneration, the same information applies to both downstream and
>   upstream directions."
> 
> NEW:
> "The usage of <WSON Processing> object for the bidirectional case is
>   the same as per unidirectional. When an intermediate node uses
>   information from this object to instruct a node about wavelength
>   regeneration, the same regeneration information should applies to both downstream and
>   upstream directions."

GM> I assume you meant section 5. Ok. Just wondering if worth spending some words on usage of I|E flags vs directions

YOUNG>> Simple grammar check with your suggested text: 

OLD: "...should applies to both downstream and upstream directions."
NEW: "...should apply to both downstream and upstream directions." 

> 
> Comment-2: Section 4.2 :
> I think the restriction on the RB Set identifier processing is maybe too strong.
> I would like to suggest the following modification:
> 
> remove
> "RB Set Field MAY contain more than one RB Indetifier. Only the first
>   one MUST be processed, the others SHOULD be ignored.
> "
> In all case, consider the Typo

GM> fine with me no problem in relaxing constrain (btw thx for catching the typo)

> Comment-3 :
> The restriction on the OIC and other parameters are also too strong, only considering one does not allows signaling to pick the one RB among several.
> Please consider the following change
> Remove
> " The Optical Interface Class List, Input Bit Range List and
>   Processing Capability List MAY contain more than one element. Only
>   the first MUST be processed, the others SHOULD be ignored.
> "
> 

GM> same as comment above

thx again for reading!

Cheers
G

> 
> 
> 
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
> Cyril Margaria
> 
> Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH
> St.Martin-Str. 76
> D-81541 München
> Germany
> mailto:[e-mail]
> Phone: [phone]
> Fax:   [phone]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH
> Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Gero Neumeier, Dr. Rolf Nauerz
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
> Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 197143
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp