Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework

[Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

I was advised by my our WG chairs that I should respond you here.

A new version of this draft (ie., draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14) has been submitted to address your following comments.

Please see more in-line to check how these comments have been addressed. 




Best Regards

Fatai


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:13 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework

Thanks for this document. It is really well-written and a good read.
I am sure a lot of effort went into it, so many thanks for the 
attention you have given to getting it right.

I have two requests for small additions to the document and a couple
of nits.  Obviously, these comments are up for debate, but until then
I have placed the document in "Revised I-D Needed" state.  Once we
resolve these issues or you post a new revision I will issue IETF last
call.

Thanks,
Adrian

===


Please add a new section to provide a discussion of network management
and OAM.  A way to approach this is to look at Appendix A of RFC 5706 
and use that to guide to what you should write. Alternatively, you could
use RFC 6123 to give you guidance and structure.

This information is more important in the framework document than in the
protocol documents because it will set the scene correctly. A lot of
this can probably be done by reference to existing documentation, and a
total of only a few paragraphs will probably suffice.

I suggest this goes in as Section 5.7 "Implications for Management of
GMPLS Networks"

[Fatai] Agreed, and a new section 5.7 was created with a few paragraphs and [RFC3945] & [RFC5440] were referenced for more information about management aspects.

---

"OTN" needs to be expanded on first use in the Introduction.

[Fatai] Expanded as suggested. 
---

The phrase "OTN network" seems to be redundant. 

[Fatai] "network/networks" was removed as suggested.
---

Section 7 should talk about whether the DCN is likely to be in the 
overhead and therefore in-fiber.  This approach, together with access 
lists at the network edges, provides a significant security feature.

[Fatai] Updated as suggested.