Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-10.txt

["Gruman, Fred" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Fatai,

I have one comment on Section 5.1.  In this section, there is the following text: "Note that the tolerance is no longer signaled as explained above".  

I believe this sentence should be removed as tolerance was never signaled in a published RFC, only in early versions of the G.709 signaling drafts. This may be confusing to the reader once the RFC is published as the context to early drafts is lost.

Best Regards,
Fred

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fatai Zhang
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:06 PM
To: Lou Berger; CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-10.txt

Hi Lou and all,

A new version has been submitted to address the 2nd WG Last Call comments on this draft.

Please take a look and any further comments are appreciated.




Best Regards

Fatai


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:15 AM
To: CCAMP; [e-mail]
Subject: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on signaling-g709v3 (editorial only)

Hi,
	The following are comments as part of my LC review of
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-09.  Note that I'm the document
shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more information.

As with other documents:
- This and the other g709v3 documents should be consistent in usage of
"TS granularity" versus "TSG".  Sometimes one is used rather than the
other, sometimes both are used in the same document (as is the case in
this document).  Please pick either one and update the four documents to
be consistent.

- Another and related comment is please define and use a consistent
plural form of "TS".  You initially define "TSs" to expand to "Time
Slots", but then use "TS" as the plural form in many (but not all
cases).  I personally think "TSs" in all plural cases makes the most sense.

- Also same comment for TSGs.

- Please be consistent in usage of "Gbps".  Some inconsistent examples:
 "1.25Gps", "1.25 Gbps" and "1.25 Gbps".  (I personally
 prefer the final form, but any common form is fine.)

Please see
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-09.txt
for line numbers used in this message.

Line 47:
 s/updates/provides an alternative to

Line 49:
 s/evolving OTN addressing ODUk multiplexing and new/full set of OTN

Line 97:
 s/updates/provides an alternative to

Line 132:
 s/[G.709-V3]/[G709-2012]

Line 143:
 drop "needs to be updated because it"

Line 330:
 "Here:" what?  Do you mean "Where:"?

Line 373:
 s/PATH/Path

Line 379:
 s/MAY not/may not

Lines 388/9:
 Tolerance no longer signaled.  Suggest saying as much.

Lines 581:
 s/ignored/ignored on receipt.

Section 6.
 You should consistently use formal object names throughout this
section, which can be found at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
e.g, "Label Set" --> "LABEL_SET Object".

Line 591:
 s/MAY not/need not

Line 611:
  As repeating whats in 3473, suggest lower case usage of 2119 terms.

Line 624,625,626/7:
  s/TS type/TSG

Line 879.
 How about adding to the beginning of the paragraph something along the
lines of:
   This document is a modification to [RFC3473] and [RFC4328], and only
   differs in specific information communicated. As such, this document
   ...

Lines 888-897
  How about:
   Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
   assignments in the "Class Types or C-Types ‒ 9 FLOWSPEC" and
   "Class Types or C-Types ‒ 12 SENDER_TSPEC" section of the "RSVP
   Parameters" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml

   Value     Description         Reference
    7*       OTN-TDM             [This.I-D]

   (*) Suggested value

Lines 905-909:
   Drop lines

Line 911->928:
  to match registry, Replace with:
   Value Type                            Technology       Reference
   ===== ======================          ==========
   47    G.709 ODU-2.5G                  G.709 ODUk      [RFC4328],
         (IANA to update Type field)                     [This.I-D]
   56    SBCON/ESCON                     G.709 ODUk,     [RFC4328],
         (IANA to update Type field)       Lambda, Fiber [This.I-D]
   59*   Framed GFP                      G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   60*   STM-1                           G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   61*   STM-4                           G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   62*   InfiniBand                      G.709 ODUflex   [This.I-D]
   63*   SDI (Serial Digital Interface)  G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   64*   SDI/1.001                       G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   65*   DVB_ASI                         G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   66*   G.709 ODU-1.25G                 G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   67*   G.709 ODU-Any                   G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   68*   Null Test                       G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   69*   Random Test                     G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]
   70*   64B/66B GFP-F Ethernet          G.709 ODUk      [This.I-D]

Line 930:
  Add "Upon approval of this document, IANA will define a "OTN

Line 931/932
  Drop to end of sentence starting with "will be defined by ..."

Line 956:
  add:
    New values are to be assigned via Standards Action as defined in
    [RFC5226].

Lines 1006-1023:
  Aren't these all normative references?

That's it,
Lou

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