[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 > > > >
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call: g709-framework, g709-info-m… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: g709-framework, g709-in… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ie… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ie… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on… Huub van Helvoort
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on … Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ie… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was: WG… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Fwd: RE: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was:… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was:… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Rajan Rao
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fred Gruman
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Gruman, Fred