[CCAMP] R: 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-info-model (editorial)

Hi Lou,

all comments have been addressed, just some minor comments:

1. TS granularity and 1.25/2.5Gbps aligned with other IDs
2. Lines 452-457 dropped as issue already explained in lines 401-409.

BR
Daniele & Sergio

________________________________________
Da: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] per conto di Lou Berger [lberger@labn.net]
Inviato: venerdì 14 giugno 2013 22.04
A: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org
Oggetto: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-info-model (editorial)

Hi,
        The following are comments as part of my LC review of
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-08.  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-otn-g709-info-model-08.txt
for line numbers used in this message.

The draft needs to be nit free before being passed to the IESG. The
following nits show in the above URL:

  Checking references for intended status: Informational

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC3630' is defined on line 831, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5250' is defined on line 853, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-04

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-11

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-05

I also have the following editorial comments:

- From my comments on the framework document: 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.

- Also same comment for TSGs.

- please be consistent in usage of "Gbps".  Some inconsistent examples:
 "1.25/2.5", "1.25Gbps", "1.25 GBps" and "1.25 Gbps".  (I personally
 prefer the final form, but any common form is fine.)

Line 24:
 s/methods/protocols

Lines 88-97: Section 1
  This section is a bit odd in what it says and doesn't say.  How about
  something along the following as a replacement:

  GMPLS routing and signaling, as defined by [RFC4203], [RFC3473] and
  [RFC4328],  provides the mechanisms for basic GMPLS control of OTN
  networks based on the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification.
  The 2012 revision of the G.709 specification, [G709-2012], includes
  new OTN features which are not supported by GMPLS.

  This document provides an evaluation of exiting GMPLS signaling and
  routing protocols against G.709 [G.709-2012] requirements. Background
  information and a framework for the GMPLS protocol extensions need to
  support [G.709-2012] is provided in [OTN-FWK].  Specific routing and
  signaling extensions are defined in [OTN-OSPF] and [OTN-RSVP].

Line 214:
  s/2,5/2.5

Line 257:
  Do you perhaps mean "This distinction" rather than "The
  discrimination"?

Line 292:
  s/r[/[

Line 300:
  AUTOpayloadtype needs a reference

Line 320:
  s/TS size/TSG

Line 322/3:
  I think the 1st sentence cane be dropped (as it really just says
  "On the other side the client TSG is the TSG that is exported towards
  the client layer.")

Line 412:
  s/like/such as

Line 416
 s/his/its

Lines 452-457:
 This paragraph is incomprehensible.  I tried to come up with
 suggested, but failed as I'm not sure what is being made.

Line 461:
 A guess:
 s/so to have a more precise choice capability./to enable precise path
selection

Line 464:
 s/allowed/possible

Section 17.
The choice of which documents are informative and which are normative
seems a bit random.  I'm not too sure what a normative reference really
means in this type of informational document in any case, but clearly
the itu data plane documents should be normative if any references are
identified as such.

That's it,
Lou

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp