Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,

Please see inline for my comments. Here's the working version and the idnits results.

Let me know if this is ready for publication.

Thanks.
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:28 PM
To: CCAMP; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf

Authors,
	I have some comments on this document. Many 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

YOUNG>> Done.

- In two places
  s/These routing enhancements are required/These routing enhancements are applicable

YOUNG>> Done. 

- Do you want to reference
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te? Perhaps in the intro.

YOUNG>> Added in the introduction section, "Related to this document is [GEN-OSPF] which provides GMPLS OSPF routing enhancements to support the generic routing and label assignment process that can be applicable to a wider range of technologies beyond WSON."

- Section 2, SUB-TLV ordering
  Looks like this ordering matches rwa-info, even though the encoding
  document doesn't. (Suggest the encoding document be fixed.)

YOUNG>> Yes. WSON encode is now matching with info and OSPF. 

- Section 2 says:

   All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given
   Optical Node TLV. "At most once" means that if there is sub-TLV
   related information, it should be always included.

   The second sentence reads to me to be closer to "at least once".
   "At most once" means no more than one time. Please clarify your
   intent.

YOUNG>> How about: 

   "All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given 
   Optical Node TLV. If more than one copy of a sub-TLV is received, 
   only the first one of the same type is accommodated and the rest 
   are ignored upon receipt." 

- Section 2.1: title
  s/Sub-TLV Details/Resource Block Information

YOUNG>> Corrected. 

- Section 2.1, 1st paragraph
  Looks like this belongs at the end of the section 2 (intro)

YOUNG>> Moved to the end of the Section 2. 

- Section 2.1, should be sub-sub-tlv, and there are 4 not 3 or 5

   There are four nested sub-sub-TLVs defined in the Resource Block
   Information sub-TLV.

   Value          Length      sub-Sub-TLV Type

  also add lines for "Input Bit Rate List"

YOUNG>> Done.


- Sections 2.1.1->2.1.4
  shouldn't these be sections 2.2 -> 2.5?

YOUNG>> Not sure these numberings, but we have the following headers: (Note: 2.2-2.5 were promoted from the Level 3 header as they are the same level as Resource Block Information.) 

2. The Optical Node Property TLV	
2.1. Resource Block Information	
2.2. Resource Accessibility	
2.3. Resource Wavelength Constraints	
2.4. Resource Block Pool State	
2.5. Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability	



- Section 2.1.3
  Drop "16 bit"

YOUNG>> Dropped. 

- Section 3:
  Don't you want to require the use of the RFC6205 defined label format
  for interfaces advertised with  WSON-LSC?

YOUNG>> I think this makes sense to put in Section 3.1 as this section discusses the label format. 
Added: "The format of Label is required of the use of the label format defined in [RFC6205] for interfaces advertised with WSON-LSC." 

- Section 6:
  Acee's comment on IANA applies here too. (Should look at his other
  comments too and see if they apply to this document.)

YOUNG>> Added. 

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