Re: [CCAMP] POLL CLOSED - WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03

Hi Tom,

Noted with thanks to your very helpful comments! We will update the draft
and address your comments in the upcoming revision.

Thank you,
Aihua

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 6:44 AM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> There are good reasons why there is a limit of five authors on the front
> page of an RFC so when I see in excess of twice that number, I know what to
> expect:-(
>
> IANA Considerations must be as per YANG Guidelines; no IANA
> Considerations, no YANG modules.
>
> Security Considerations must be as per YANG Guidelines.
>
> Line length is limited in RFC; this limit is exceeded in the YANG modules
>
> YANG import must be a Normative Reference in the I-D.
>
> TLP is out of date in the YANG module
>
> YANG references must also be I-D references e,g GSMA NS Template (and they
> have to be accessible)
>
> No RF8174 boiler plate; are those lower case 'must' really lower case?
>
> Abbreviations need expanding on first use in both text and YANG module
>
> The way my mind works is that if these straightforward non-technical
> matters are not right then is there any point in looking at the technical
> ones? YMMV!
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ________________________________________
> From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli
> <daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Sent: 28 January 2022 13:50
> To: Aihua Guo; Fatai Zhang
> Cc: CCAMP
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] POLL CLOSED - WG adoption poll on
> draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
>
> Hi Aihua,
>
> That’s an excellent work, it will make the interim much more profitable.
> Thanks a lot.
> It would be great to have a similar list/presentation from the part of the
> WG that believes that we should speak about OTN slicing but only
> applicability of OTN to network slicing.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniele
>
> From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Aihua Guo
> Sent: den 27 januari 2022 19:14
> To: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] POLL CLOSED - WG adoption poll on
> draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
>
> Hi Fatai, Daniele, WG,
>
> Thank you for concluding the adoption call.
> draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-00 has been published to the WG.
>
> In today's meeting, we have created a collection of comments received from
> the mailing list, and plan to provide further responses for the interim
> based on the replies already made on the mailing list. The list is tracked
> as issue #25<
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-487ca34dd2925741&q=1&e=558326bf-5aa5-4c1a-bc50-0e4d1cac4cb3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Faguoietf%2Fietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing%2Fissues%2F25>
> on GitHub and also copied below for your reference:
>
>   1.  Harmonizing with [draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]
>   2.  It would be helpful for the draft to reflect the fact that OTN-SC is
> just a “NS Realizer” for OTN networks.
>   3.  Harmonizing with [draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing]
>   4.  Reduced frontpage author (#23<
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-4792b329c1f7937d&q=1&e=558326bf-5aa5-4c1a-bc50-0e4d1cac4cb3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Faguoietf%2Fietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing%2Fissues%2F23
> >)
>   5.  Clarify relationship between an OTN slice and L1VPN
>   6.  Clarify relationship between an OTN slice and Abstract (TE) Topology
>   7.  Is there a need for OTN slicing? Some thought that slicing should
> stop at IP layer
>   8.  Is "OTN slicing" a conflated term, and should we call it "OTN
> resource partitioning" or "OTN virtual network"?
>   9.  Update the description and Fig. 2 for the 3 identified options.
> Explicit verbiage showing the options would be good for the reader.
>   10. It would be helpful to show maybe in a section that how this
> additional OTN-SC the value and gains it provides that is not already
> provided by ACTN framework RFC 8453.
>   11. It may be a good idea to add verbiage in the draft as to the OTN
> slice provisioning gap that exists for network slicing compared to ACTN
> provisioning of underlay VN Type 1 and Type 2 OTN resources.
>   12. Minor changes to the text following section 1.3.2 of RFC 5921 (MPLS
> --> MPLS(-TP))
> Thanks,
> Aihua
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:45 AM Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai=
> 40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The WG poll is closed with the result of the draft being adopted based on
> the WG consensus.
>
> We as the chairs made the decision to adopt the draft because there is
> lots of interest in this topic and the open comments have been clarified to
> some extent, and we’re arranging an interim just on this draft and the WG
> will decide if and how to update the draft according to mailing list
> discussion and interim discussions.
>
>
> Authors, please republish draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03  as
> draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-00 with only the date and file name
> changed..
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fatai & Daniele
>
>
> 发件人: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org>]
> 代表 Fatai Zhang
> 发送时间: 2022年1月12日 10:24
> 收件人: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
> 主题: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
>
> Hi all,
>
> All the IPR declarations regarding draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
> have been collected, this starts the polling for WG adoption.
>
> The poll will last 2 weeks and will end on Wednesday January 26th.
>
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> support" and a motivation for your reply, mandatory for the "not support"
> and nice to have for the "support".
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fatai & Daniele
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>