Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-13.txt

Fatai Zhang <> Wed, 19 June 2013 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1A911E8116 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JMmLuVv0fy62 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AECC11E8120 for <>; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AUA88636; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:16:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:16:19 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:16:50 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:16:43 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <>
To: Lou Berger <>, CCAMP <>
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: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
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-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:03 AM
Subject: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-framework (editorial only)

	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

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:
  Later revisions of the G.709 specification, i.e., [G709-2012], has
  included some new features
  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:

Line 313:

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

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
 A new extension object has to be defined
 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

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,

CCAMP mailing list