Return-Path: X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F212A21E80D6; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 08:16:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G7JEpZyx4VoP; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 08:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C8721E80C3; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 08:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVB95251; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 15:16:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:15:24 +0100 Received: from DFWEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.102) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:15:42 +0100 Received: from dfweml511-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.15.204]) by dfweml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.102]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 08:15:34 -0700 From: Leeyoung To: Fatai Zhang , "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt Thread-Index: AQHOqg5TB/BSDVgzBUiD4+42YtKDgZm3QSpA Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:15:33 +0000 Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291BAA4A@dfweml511-mbs.china.huawei.com> References: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291BA6E8@dfweml511-mbs.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.158.173] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291BAA4Adfweml511mbschi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "ccamp@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3.all@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 15:16:24 -0000 --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291BAA4Adfweml511mbschi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Fatai, Thanks for your quick resolution. I have no further issue pending after you= r proposed changes. Regards, Young From: Fatai Zhang Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:03 AM To: Leeyoung; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709= v3.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: RE: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3= -11.txt Hi Young and all, Thanks for your comments. All Nits should be accepted. Please see more in-line to check if you are happy with the proposed updates= and the clarification. Best Regards Fatai From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-b= ounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leeyoung Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:27 AM To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.= txt Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. Th= e Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts= as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the re= view is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information abou= t the Routing Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/= routing.html Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it wo= uld be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Ca= ll comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion= or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt Reviewer: Young Lee Review Date: 4 September 2013 IETF LC End Date: Intended Status: Standard Track Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has some minor issues= and nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: This document is clearly written and easy to understand, but there are a fe= w places that can be improved. The document title refers this extension as = GMPLS Signaling Extensions for "the evolving G.709 OTN control" which may b= e referred to as "G709v3" in the document to be aligned with the draft name= (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-singaling-g709v3). Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: Section 3: When referring that VCAT of OPU0/OPU2e/OPU4/OPUflex is not suppo= rted by [G709-2012], please add some comment for the readers if this docume= nt or other document deals with such extension or that work remains to be w= orked out in the future. It was not clear why you mentioned of this VCAT is= sue. [Fatai] Your comment has been addressed in Section 6.3 in detail way. Section 4: The clause "via 1.25G TS granularity, 2.5G TS granularity or any= one of them (i.e., TS granularity Auto-Negotiation is enabled)" is a bit c= onfusing. [Fatai]Agree. I think we can use "ODU-any defined below" to replace "any o= ne of them (i.e., TS granularity Auto-Negotiation is enabled)". Section 5: The first paragraph can be clearer by associating the objects me= ntioned with the Path or Resv Message. Please consider to change to: "The t= raffic Parameters for OTN-TDM capable Switching Type are carried in the OTN= -TDM Sender_TSPEC object in the Path Message and the OTN-FLOWSPEC object in= the Resv Message." [Fatai]Agree and accept. Section 6.2: "In such case" is not clear. Is that meant: "When the TPN was = not assigned by the ingress node"? [Fatai] No, but your comment makes sense. I think we can use "When the TPN = is assigned by the ingress node" to replace "In this case". Section 8, the fourth bullet mentioned of "Ingress" nodes may select the pr= ocedure either from RFC4328 or this document. How about the egress nodes? I= s it assumed to follow what the ingress has chosen? (Just a clarification q= uestion) [Fatai] There is nothing with egress nodes. There is this bullet because th= e ingress nodes have chance to select the procedure (either from RFC4328 or= this document). Nits: Section 3, when the term "Tributary Slot" is first used (i.e,. A new Tribut= ary Slot granularity (i.e., 1.25Gbps) is also described...), please add the= abbreviation. Section 3 s/legacy interfaces/the legacy interfaces/ Section 4 s/[RFC4328] extends/[RFC4328] extended/ Section 5: Spell NVC. Section 5.2: For Table 2, align the column dividers Section 5.2 s/MUST equal to/MUST equal/ or /MUST be equal to/ Section 6.2: delete "out" before "outgoing" in the first sentence of the th= ird paragraph. Section 6.2: s/accordingly to/according to/ (6th paragraph) Thanks. Young --_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291BAA4Adfweml511mbschi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Fatai,

 

Thanks for your quick = resolution. I have no further issue pending after your proposed changes.

 

Regards,

Young

 

From: Fatai Zh= ang
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:03 AM
To: Leeyoung; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signali= ng-g709v3.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling= -g709v3-11.txt

 

Hi Yo= ung and all,

=  

Thank= s for your comments.

=  

All N= its should be accepted.  

=  

Pleas= e see more in-line to check if you are happy with the proposed updates and = the clarification.

=  

 

 

 

 

Best Regards

 

Fatai

=  

From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leeyoung
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:27 AM
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org=
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g70= 9v3-11.txt

 

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.= The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related dra= fts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the= review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, pl= ease see http://www.ie= tf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it= would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last= Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discuss= ion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-11.txt
Reviewer: Young Lee
Review Date: 4 September 2013
IETF LC End Date: 
Intended Status: Standard Track

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publicatio= n, but has some minor issues and nits that should be considered prior to pu= blication.

Comments:
This document is clearly written and easy to understand, but there are a fe= w places that can be improved. The document title refers this extension as = GMPLS Signaling Extensions for “the evolving G.709 OTN control”= which may be referred to as “G709v3” in the document to be aligned with the draft name (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-singali= ng-g709v3).

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
Section 3: When referring that VCAT of OPU0/OPU2e/OPU4/OPUflex is not suppo= rted by [G709-2012], please add some comment for the readers if this docume= nt or other document deals with such extension or that work remains to be w= orked out in the future. It was not clear why you mentioned of this VCAT issue.

[Fatai] Your comment has been addressed in Se= ction 6.3 in detail way.

Section 4: The clause “via 1.25G TS granularity, 2.5G TS granulari= ty or any one of them (i.e., TS granularity Auto-Negotiation is enabled)= 221; is a bit confusing.

[Fatai]Agree.  I think we can use “= ;ODU-any defined below” to replace “any one of them (i.e., TS g= ranularity Auto-Negotiation is enabled)”.

Section 5: The first paragraph can be clearer by associating the objects= mentioned with the Path or Resv Message. Please consider to change to: = 220;The traffic Parameters for OTN-TDM capable Switching Type are carried i= n the OTN-TDM Sender_TSPEC object in the Path Message and the OTN-FLOWSPEC object in the Resv Message.” =

[Fatai]Agree and accept.

Section 6.2: “In such case” is not clear. Is that meant: = 220;When the TPN was not assigned by the ingress node”?

[Fatai] No, but your comment makes sense. I t= hink we can use “When the TPN is assigned by the ingress node” = to replace “In this case”.

Section 8, the fourth bullet mentioned of “Ingress” nodes ma= y select the procedure either from RFC4328 or this document. How about the = egress nodes? Is it assumed to follow what the ingress has chosen? (Just a = clarification question)

[Fatai] There is nothing with egress nodes. T= here is this bullet because the ingress nodes have chance to select the pro= cedure (either from RFC4328 or this document).

Nits:

Section 3, when the term “Tributary Slot” is first used (i.e= ,. A new Tributary Slot granularity (i.e., 1.25Gbps) is also described̷= 0;), please add the abbreviation.

Section 3
s/legacy interfaces/the legacy interfaces/

Section 4

s/[RFC4328] extends/[RFC4328]= extended/

Section 5: Spell NVC.

Section 5.2: For Table 2, align the column dividers

Section 5.2

s/MUST equal to/MUST equal/ o= r /MUST be equal to/

Section 6.2: delete “out” before “outgoing” in t= he first sentence of the third paragraph.

Section 6.2: s/accordingly to/according to/ (6th paragraph)

Thanks.

Young

 

--_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291BAA4Adfweml511mbschi_--