Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-13.txt
Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Wed, 19 June 2013 01:16 UTC
Return-Path: <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
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 6C1A911E8116 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 JMmLuVv0fy62 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AECC11E8120 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AUA88636; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:16:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:16:19 +0100
Received: from SZXEML421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.160) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:16:50 +0100
Received: from SZXEML552-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.94]) by szxeml421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.160]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:16:43 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-13.txt
Thread-Index: AQHObIqn4aX7ttzhfkWiNVh6vd6zHw==
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:16:42 +0000
Message-ID: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84C3F61A8@SZXEML552-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <51A8CB9D.40009@labn.net> <51BB7710.2020009@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <51BB7710.2020009@labn.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.72.159]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-13.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: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:16:59 -0000
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 welcome. Best Regards Fatai -----Original Message----- From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:03 AM To: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework@tools.ietf.org Subject: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-framework (editorial only) Hi, The following are comments as part of my LC review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-12. Note that I'm the document shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more information. I only have editorial nits, which should be picked up in the next revision of this document. The most major comment I have is that 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. Line numbers in the following comments can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-12.txt Line 96: "suite including provision [RFC4328] provides" This sentence is broken and should be rephrased. perhaps you mean something like: The GMPLS signaling extensions defined in [RFC4328] provide the mechanisms for basic GMPLS control of OTN networks based on the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification. Line 98/9: this is pretty awkward, how about: OLD Later revisions of the G.709 specification, i.e., [G709-2012], has included some new features NEW The 2012 revision of the G.709 specification, [G709-2012], includes new features Line 143: Does it make sense to mention PPM here? suggest dropping. Also need to expand acronym on initial use. Section 3 Given the discussion on the signaling document I think it's worth adding a few words and a reference to [G7041] in this section. Line 258: s/granularity and/granularity, Line 272: s/the 'new' equipment will/[G709-2012] requires 'new' equipment Line 273: s/if/when Line 313: s/TSs/TS Lines 388/9: I think the terminology "flexible optical connections" is not well defined in this context. Either add a reference or drop the word "flexible". Line 390: Add a reference defining 3R. How about adding ", see [RFC6163] for additional information." to the end of the line? Line 438 & 510: Add references for MLN. Line 571-579: Given the documented signaling approach, does it still make sense to mention tolerance here? Line 590: What is a TS type, perhaps you mean "TSG"? Line 598: s/in order to setting up/in order to set up Line 604/5 OLD A new extension object has to be defined NEW A signaling mechanism must be identified Line 667: s/of TS/of each TS Line 681 Suggest dropping "and sufficient" as it is completely unclear what this means. Line 721: remove redundant text "either no priorities or" Lines 752-755: I'm not sure what value this paragraph provides as LMP information is generally available from the management plane (e.g., configuration). Line 758 s/case/cases Line 761: s/the discovering procedure by LMP/discovery via LMP Line 857: Need a reference for "TS auto-negotiation is supported" That's it, Lou _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call: g709-framework, g709-in… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call: g709-framework, g70… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-framewo… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-info-mo… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on signaling-g7… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g7… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-si… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-si… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-si… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-si… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-si… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-si… Gruman, Fred
- [CCAMP] R: 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-info… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-si… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-si… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpl… Lou Berger