[CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt

Tomonori TAKEDA <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp> Fri, 30 August 2013 05:47 UTC

Return-Path: <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A92311E819C; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.09
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZWKUzJPFUjqJ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB2A11E819B; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp []) by tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7U5l56A007659; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900
Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost.localdomain []) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB3CE013D; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900 (JST)
Received: from imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp []) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CEDE0141; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900 (JST)
Received: from imf.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (webmail.ecl.ntt.co.jp []) by imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id r7U5l5MQ014566; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900
Message-Id: <201308300547.r7U5l5MQ014566@imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp>
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
From: Tomonori TAKEDA <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900
X-Mailer: WebMail V3.7 PL3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 05:47:19 -0000


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The 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 review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 

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 discussion or by updating the draft. 

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt  
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: 30 August 2013 
IETF LC End Date: 02 September 2013 
Intended Status: Informational 

o Summary: 
This document describes framework for GMPLS/PCE control of OTN and impacts on GMPLS/PCE protocols. Overview of OTN is mentioned, which is helpful to understand the document.

o Comments: 
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.
(I think these are mostly related to clarification questions.)

o Major Issues: 
No major issues found. 

o Minor Issues: 

1) In Section 5.3., it says the following requirement for GMPLS routing.
 -  Support different priorities for resource reservation

I think this is a valid requirement, but I do not think this is specific to OTN.
Does this imply the need for protocol extensions or just the usage of protocols?

2) Section 5.4., it says:

       Furthermore, since multiplexing hierarchy was not allowed 
       by the legacy OTN referenced by [RFC4328], ....

By reading RFC4328 section 2, it refers to ODU multiplexing. Am I missing something?

3) In Section 5.5., it says.

      Note that this case is supported by the procedures defined in
      [RFC3473] as a different Switching Capability/Type value is 
      used for the different control plane versions.

I am not sure which part of RFC3473 metions such procedures. Could you please point it?

o Nits: 
Section 4.1

Section 4.1

Section 5.6
s/section 5.2.1/section 5.2