[CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-03

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 19 October 2012 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 5018D21F885A for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tCYqAta6EbUW for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E21121F8858 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11261 invoked by uid 0); 19 Oct 2012 23:05:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy11.bluehost.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2012 23:05:51 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=7UIA5bGCdaFsvXaYirm8SQ3N7Lcadm8b9FhMkYcsy1c=; b=Z1l3ewmLuRSsGg2mYrMwNM6+jz5AOHWMj0pHvwzr+ZXNpO5KAo6XmCwSyHNPaAftFXziu8jtnLlMWRNheD04DXJQXQasqvQtyqhJEtCYy/LWbrDzAmYFBRsVH47inZ/m;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:37767 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1TPLdX-0002p7-0l; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:05:51 -0600
Message-ID: <5081DCC9.8090904@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:05:45 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
References: <50733BED.8090304@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <50733BED.8090304@labn.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-03
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, 19 Oct 2012 23:06:14 -0000

Authors,
	I have the following LC comments:

General comments:

- Some comments made just about a year ago still remain unaddressed:

On 10/28/2011 6:18 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> Thanks for the careful review, please find comment/replies in line [DSP]
>
> Daniele, Sergio, Pietro
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Lou Berger
> Sent: mercoledì 26 ottobre 2011 0.37
> To: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: CCAMP
> Subject: [CCAMP] some comments on gmpls-ospf-g709v3-00
...
> 2) SCSI TLV formatting
>
> The field descriptions are missing format related conformance
> (RFC2119) language.
>
> [DSP] - Ok, will be fixed.
>
> 3) SCSI TLV procedures
>
> You have defined the formats of the TLVs in Section 4.1, but not
> explicitly how they are to be used. Some RFC2119 language really is 
> needed to cover how the SCSI is to be encoded and parsed. At a
> minimum, any TLV inclusion, ordering requirements, and exception
> handling should be covered. (For example, your examples always show a
> particular ordering relative to Stage#, is this required,
> recommended, or just a possibility. You have some informative
> language, which is great, but you also need some RFC2119 language.)
> [DSP] - Ok
...
> 6) Finally, some nits:
> s/[OTN-INFO], the OSPF-TE/[OTN-INFO], OSPF-TE s/list of them/list
s/Priority :8 bits/Priority (8 bits):
> s/infer/imply
>
> [DSP] - Ok

- You have some very nice examples, but are inconsistent in filling in
field values.  I think all values that can possibly be filled in in the
examples should be.

Detailed editorial and technical comments:

- Please verify that abbreviations are defined before being used .
There are a number of these.

- Please use a consistent decimal representation (sometimes commas are
used other times periods)

- the references [G709-v1] and [G709-v3] each actually refer to multiple
documents, each documented needs to have it's own (correct) reference,
i.g., [G709-v1] and [G709-v1a1]. The document text will need to be
revisited to ensure the proper reference is made.

-
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-03.txt
shows there are unresolved nits that need to resolved .  I'm using line
numbers from this url in my subsequent comments.

- Line 24: drop "The recent revision of "

- Line 138: "ODUk an higher order" --> "ODUk to indicate a higher order"

- Line 145: "iterated" --> "repeated"

- Line 181/2: Drop "Some of the prominent representations are captured
below."

- Line 202: perhaps "termed" --> "referred to"?

- Line 226: I'd suggest 110, but don't feel too strongly about it.

- Line 228: Start with "When supporting the extensions defined in this
document, the"

- Lines 236-261: Replace all lines with "MUST be interpreted as defined
in [RFC4203]".  No need to repeat what's already specified.

- Lines 265-272: Additional information is fine, but don't repeat 4203
unless directly quoting.

- Line 300: Need to specify what "differing characteristics" means using
RFC2119 language.

- Section 4.1.

I think the combine presentation of the two types is confusing.  I
suggest adding a section 4.1.1 right after line 311 covering "Switch
Capability Specific Information for fixed containers" followed by a
section 4.1.2 covering "Switch Capability Specific Information for
flexible containers".  Field definitions will need to be reorganized as
appropriate.

Also the common format and rules related to the OTN-TDM SCSI container
should be defined before going into the type specific definitions. (at
the 4.1) level.

- Lines 405-417: How about replace all with:
  "Signal Type: Indicates the ODU type being advertised. Values are
defined in [OTN-SIG]"

- Line 428: after "level" suggest adding something like "below the
indicated signal type"

- Line 442: "00" --> "0"

- Lines 447, 454, 463, 464: I find the "don't care" case a bit odd.  How
about make 0 "unused" or "ignored" and use it instead of 4?

- Lines 472/3: Replace "stage of the muxing hierarchy" --> "of the
indicated Number of stages"

- Line 476: "then no Stage fields MUST be included." --> "then the Stage
and Padding fields MUST be omitted."

- Lines 484/5: "Only Unreserved/MAX LSP BW fields for supported" -->
"Unreserved/MAX LSP BW fields for each identified"

- Line 486: After "to 7)" add ", and Unreserved/MAX LSP BW fields for
other priority values MUST be omitted."

- Line 497: Drop "Only", "for supported" --> "for each supported"

- As mentioned above need processing rules/procedures, for multiple
ISCDs, SCSI information, e.g., use and ordering of multiple containers.

- Line 503: "infer" -> "imply"

- Fill in all example field values

- Section 7 -- update to reference 4203 and 5920.  Discuss implications
/ added risk of additional information provided in this document.

Section 8.  This section needs some work.  (I'm assuming your familiar
with rfc5226).

- Switching types are assigned in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xml#gmpls-sig-parameters-3
 (Again I suggest 110, not 101, but this isn't a big deal)

- I think you are actually asking for IANA to establish a new registry.
 Perhaps something like "OTN-TDM Container Registry" under a new "GMPLS
Routing Parameters" with two new types.

That's it on this document.

Lou

On 10/8/2012 4:47 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> This mail begins a two week working group last call on:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09
> (Informational)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-04
> (Informational)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-03
> (Standards Track)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04
> (Standards Track)
> 
> This working group last call ends on October 22.  Comments should be
> sent to the CCAMP mailing list.  Please remember to include the
> technical basis for any comments.
> 
> Please note that we're still missing a few IPR statements, and look
> for these to come in during the LC period.  Any forthcoming publication
> request will be delayed by late IPR statements/disclosures.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
>