Re: [CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 30 April 2012 09:19 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 A580C21F85A0 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 63xY6ax0xBYC for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E958121F8551 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3U9J3H1003072; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:19:03 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ([94.116.35.189]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3U9IqCT002820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:18:59 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ccamp@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
References: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8132897@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
In-Reply-To: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8132897@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:18:15 +0100
Message-ID: <06e101cd26b2$45eb86f0$d1c294d0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJvqjtfE2f/k1KmtYyUF9LBktHj5JVuDwLw
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-03.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:19:11 -0000

Congratulations on a very clear document.

I found one nit during AD review which is not worth handling at this stage. I
have recorded it as an RFC Editor note that we can pick up if a respin is
needed, or leave for the RFC Editor.

I will go ahead and issue the IETF last call.

Cheers,
Adrian

RFC Editor Note

Section 2.1
OLD
   It is explicitly defined as having both general
   application and specific use within the context of recovery.  End-to-
   end recovery usage is defined in [RFC4872] and is covered in Section
   2.2.  Segment recovery usage is defined in [RFC4873] and is covered
   in Section 2.3.    Resource sharing LSP association is also defined in
   [RFC4873], while strictly speaking such association is beyond the
   scope of this document, for completeness it is covered in Section
   2.4. 
NEW
   It is explicitly defined as having both general
   application and specific use within the context of recovery.  End-to-
   end recovery usage is defined in [RFC4872] and is covered in Section
   2.2 of this document.  Segment recovery usage is defined in [RFC4873]
   and is covered in Section 2.3 of this document.  Resource sharing LSP
   association is also defined in [RFC4873], while strictly speaking 
   such association is beyond the scope of this document, for 
   completeness it is covered in Section 2.4 of this document
END