Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-05.txt

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,

Below you can find the last call comments pasted with replies in line.

All nits, typos and suggested text changes without any comment in line have been accepted/modified accordingly.

BR
Daniele & Sergio


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>Sent: sabato 20 ottobre 2012 0.06
>To: CCAMP; [e-mail]
>Subject: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on 
>draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-04
>
>
>Authors,
>	I have the following LC comments:
>
>General comments:
>
>- There's a lot of text/concepts that is common to both this 
>document and the framework document.  The document certainly 
>adds additional useful detail, but I'm not sure it's really 
>provides an information model of any kind.  Optimally, I think 
>this document should be merged with the framework document.  I 
>think this would yield a more comprehensive and understandable 
>result.  I really don't see this as a lot of work/time, 
>although it clearly would be a major change
>
>If this is considered to be to onerous a proposal, then this 
>document should at least be updated to (a) reduce duplication 
>text with the framework document and (b) remove any references 
>to "model" and just talk about providing "Additional Information"

All duplicated text have been removed from this ID and kept into the FWK (mostly End of section 1, whole sections 2 and 3).

Title changed into:
Evaluation of existing GMPLS encoding against G.709v3 Optical Transport Networks (OTN)

And abstract into:
[...]
   This document provides an evaluation of existing Generalized
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) routing and signaling methods
   against the G.709-2012 OTN networks.

>
>- The document should be reviewed by the authors to ensure it 
>is consistent with the latest solutions documents and WG 
>discussions.  For example, there are multiple references to 
>the contentious and much discussed "penultimate hop" case 
>without any references to the agreed upon approach.

Done. Please see section 3.2

>
>Editorial comments:
>
>- Please verify that abbreviations are defined before being used .
>There are a number of these.

Done
>
>- 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.

RFC4328 for older versions of G709 and G709-2012 for the latest one (v4)

>
>-
>http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft
-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-04.txt
>shows there are unresolved nits that need to resolved .  I'm 
>using line numbers from this url in my subsequent comments.
>
>Line 18: Suggest dropping "The recent revision of"
>
>Line 20/21: Suggest dropping the marketing phrase "enabling 
>optimized support for an increasingly abundant service mix."
>
>Lines 93-127 (through "of"): I don't see how this text 
>provides any value.  I suggest dropping it, or at most just 
>reference the FWK document.
>
>Lines 319-341: Instances of "G.709" should be "[G.709-V3]"
>
>Line 538: Add "(Source: Table 7-10 [G.709-V3])"
>
>Lines 579/80: Does "foundation G.709" mean "[G.709-V1]" If not 
>what does it mean?
>
>Line 591: Replace/add "[RFC4203]" after "OSPF-TE"
>
>Lines 617-620: While one could certainly implement 4202/3 this 
>way, it certainly is not required.  I think these lines should 
>be dropped.
>
>Lines 626-630:  These sentences are simply wrong.  What would 
>be correct is to say something like:
>
>"Per [RFC2328], OSPF messages are directly encapsulated in IP 
>datagrams and depend on IP fragmentation when transmitting 
>packets larger than the network MTU.  [RFC2328] recommends 
>that "IP fragmentation should be avoided whenever possible." 
>This recommendation further constraints solutions as OSPF does 
>not support any generic mechanism to fragment OSPF LSAs."
>
>Line 632, probably should add a reference to [RFC4201].
>
>Lines 733, 735, 764: figure numbers are wrong "6"->"9", "7"->"10"
>
>Lines 734/5: "are supposed to" --> "only"
>
>Line 735: "The figure 6 addresses" --> "Figure 9 represents"
>
>Line 738: Assuming I understand your intent, replace "Being D 
>a single stage capable node" --> "As node D is a single stage 
>capable node"
>
>Section 5, needs to be updated to reference existing relevant 
>signaling and routing GMPLS RFCs and identify any additional 
>information that is being conveyed and additional risks, if any.

New text:
   This document provides an evaluation of OTN requirements against
   actual routing [RFC4202] and [RFC4203] and signaling mechanism
   [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and [RFC4328]in GMPLS.

   New types of information to be conveyed regard OTN containers and
   hierarchies and from a security standpoint this memo does not
   introduce further risks with respect to the information that can be
   currently conveyed via GMPLS protocols.  For a general discussion on
   MPLS and GMPLS-related security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security
   framework [RFC5920].


>
>That's it on this document.
>
>Lou 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>Sent: giovedì 20 dicembre 2012 0.27
>To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
>draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-05.txt
>
>Authors?
>
>On 12/4/2012 3:31 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Authors,
>> 	Please review any changes and how LC comments are addressed.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Lou
>> 
>> On 11/28/2012 2:36 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line 
>Internet-Drafts directories.
>>>  This draft is a work item of the Common Control and 
>Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF.
>>>
>>> 	Title           : Evaluation of existing GMPLS encoding 
>against G.709v3 Optical Transport Networks (OTN)
>>> 	Author(s)       : Sergio Belotti
>>>                           Pietro Vittorio Grandi
>>>                           Daniele Ceccarelli
>>>                           Diego Caviglia
>>>                           Fatai Zhang
>>>                           Dan Li
>>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-05.txt
>>> 	Pages           : 22
>>> 	Date            : 2012-11-27
>>>
>>> Abstract:
>>>    The recent revision of ITU-T recommendation G.709 
>[G.709-2012] has
>>>    introduced new fixed and flexible Optical Data Unit 
>(ODU) containers
>>>    in Optical Transport Networks (OTNs), enabling optimized 
>support for
>>>    an increasingly abundant service mix.
>>>
>>>    This document provides an evaluation of existing Generalized
>>>    Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) routing and 
>signaling methods
>>>    against the G.709-2012 OTN networks.
>>>
>>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> 
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-05
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> 
>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model
>>> -05
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>_______________________________________________
>CCAMP mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>