IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry

Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> Fri, 29 January 2016 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746D01A1A60; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:18:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6qzpOV7P4Fv5; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4962B1A1A4D; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:18:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79a76d000000a93-9f-56ab20517204
Received: from ESESSHC015.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.63]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B6.C4.02707.1502BA65; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:18:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.140]) by ESESSHC015.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.63]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:18:25 +0100
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry
Thread-Index: AdFZJrMzDUhiWqCnQTuL7YOHQ6ZYFwAhOmJw
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:18:24 +0000
Message-ID: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4816190722@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
References: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8527ED6BA@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8527ED6BA@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.19]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4816190722ESESSMB301erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7vW6Qwuowg78vuCyW7tjEZPFkzg0W i8td3ewWu7fNZLOYMfsyqwOrx8v+OYweO2fdZfdYsuQnUwBzFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAldG/5Yv bAXPFzFWXP7XwtTAeGAiYxcjJ4eEgInEjK7p7BC2mMSFe+vZuhi5OIQEDjNKzH4wiw0kISSw hFHi+CXjLkYODjYBK4knh3xAwiICqhJnbl5kBKlnFpjHJLH19AVmkISwgJvE9znL2CCK3CXu zf7ACmEbScx5vASshgWo+cnvHUwgNq+Ar8SMP5tZIXZFSjy/1sECYnMKREks37YN7DhGAVmJ CbsXgR3NLCAucevJfCaIowUkluw5zwxhi0q8fPyPFcJWlGh/2gBVny/xedlnFohdghInZz5h mcAoOgvJqFlIymYhKYOI60ncmDqFDcLWlli28DUzhK0rMePfIRZk8QWM7KsYRYtTi5Ny042M 9FKLMpOLi/Pz9PJSSzYxAmPz4JbfBjsYXz53PMQowMGoxMNbMHdVmBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiUR 3usiq8OEeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ8x7kXxQmJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYJy6 wXn2p1/Tbi3esGdK+mfXi8/uOj5Ru9H26iNX83S/NN4VP/aG/sjwuOM+zXzFY8GKHck/TB6/ 2uk/48I5Py4D+ZfHbuWfm6u/W3rOn19fE064872rOnkm4pvwt3OXjivP052Sw+p8p9bmitv0 90KTd+g5fduyVEeDK9b0L/+P8Dv6x3802yfNUGIpzkg01GIuKk4EAI0qflLJAgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/4PRR2n5zqABNrDMhJje_raPE6Qw>
Cc: "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry@ietf.org>, "huubatwork@gmail.com" <huubatwork@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:18:32 -0000

WG, authors,

The discussion on the OTN additional signal type drafts triggered a further discussion on the OTN signal type sub-registry draft that ended up with the decision to send the draft back to the WG for some fixing.
Here a summary of the discussion and way forward for the 2 drafts:

draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry

-          Fix the editorial part as suggested by Deborah below

-          IANA section needs to be updated indicating the registry and the following registration policies:  "Standards Action" (for Standards Track documents) and "Specification Required" (for other documents). The designated expert is any current CCAMP WG chair.

-          A new short Last Call will be issued as soon as the new version will be available.

draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type

-          Adrian's comments to be addressed:  (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/VNQKqOCJVS9WbQxoeBxfwPDENUY )

-          Intended status: Informational

-          Have G.sup43 as normative reference

-          Have draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry as normative reference

-          State that the document requests code points from the not standards track part of the registry.

-          The last call will be extended to end together with the last call of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry one (as this document is depending on it).

Thanks
Daniele

From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A [mailto:db3546@att.com]
Sent: mercoledì 27 gennaio 2016 18:30
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Cc: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry@ietf.org; huubatwork@gmail.com
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry

CCAMP,

In doing my AD review of this draft, I found the IANA Considerations section confusing and have returned the draft to the WG. To have both Standards Action and IETF Review specified is an overlap. I've discussed with your Chairs and they have a proposal to discuss with you. I would hope this is non-controversial and can be done quickly (can be a shortened WG Last Call) and we can get on with publishing the document.

When fixing, I recommend removing one of the two paragraphs from the Introduction as they are duplicates. It's ok the draft is short and to the point. As this draft is forward looking for the registry, it would be best to generalize vs. repeating text from the other draft on Sup43, so I recommend removing the 1st paragraph and keeping the second paragraph (with some tweaks).

Thanks,
Deborah

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email