Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Daniele.


On 7/4/2013 5:13 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> Hi Lou, CCAMP,
> 
> A new version of the draft has been uploaded addressing the comments below.
> 
> BR
> Daniele
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: martedì 25 giugno 2013 20:10
>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli
>> Cc: CCAMP; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)
>>
>>
>> Daniele,
>>
>> Please see below.  I trimmed the text down a bit, let me know if I missed any
>> discussion points.
>>
>> On 6/25/2013 5:59 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>>> Hi Lou,
>>>
>>> All comments addressed. Some comments in line below.
>>>
>>
>> Much thanks:
>>
>> The following nits will need to be fixed in the next rev (and before going to
>> the IESG)
>>
>>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 1162, but not defined
>>
>>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC4202' is defined on line 1237, but no explicit
>>      reference was found in the text
>>
> done 
> 
>>
>>> BR
>>> Daniele
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: venerdì 14 giugno 2013 22.32
>>>> To: CCAMP; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> The following are comments as part of my LC review of
>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-06.  Note that I'm the document
>>>> shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more information.
>>>>
>>>> Please see
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft
>>> -ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-06.txt
>>>> for line numbers used in this message.
>> ...
>>
>>>> Lines 192/3:
>>>>  "The TE-Link is referred to as OTUk-TE-Link."
>>>>  This term is used just once in the document.  Suggest dropping it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK
>> still TBD.	
> I don't know why it was still there. Removed now.
> 
>>
>>>
>>>> Lines 193/4:
>>>>  Doesn't the TE link for an OTUk physical Link always provide ODUk
>>>> capacity? Either way this text needs to be fixed/clarified.
>>>
>>> What about dropping all of this text:
>>> The TE-Link is
>>> 193    referred to as OTUk-TE-Link.  The OTUk-TE-Link advertises ODUj
>>> 194    switching capacity.  The advertised capacity could include ODUk
>>> 195    switching capacity.
>> sure.
>>
>> ...
> Done
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> Lines 210-212,221:
>>>>  ODUj vs ODUk.  Isn't it the case that a multi hop TE link could
>>>> represent either ODUj or ODUk resources?  This isn't clear from the
>>>> current text/usage of ODUj/k.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> New text:
>>>
>>>        It is possible to create TE-Links that span more than one hop
>>> by creating  FA between non-adjacent nodes.
>>>  As in the one hop case, these types of ODUk-TE-Links also advertise
>>> ODU switching  capacity.
>>
>> why not just align with the figure name and use "Multiple hop TE-Link"
>> rather than introduce a new otherwise unused term "ODUk-TE-Links"?
>>
>> ...
> Agree. Modified accordingly
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lou
> 
> 
> 
>