Re: [CCAMP] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14: (with COMMENT)
Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Sun, 22 September 2013 09:11 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 AD14021F9F01 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 02:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 C3XODZ7J1L7N for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 02:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB2B21F9EF2 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 02:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVS73293; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 09:11:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:10:30 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.40) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:11:07 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.86]) by SZXEMA408-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Sun, 22 Sep 2013 17:11:00 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHOsHWiSdiLfM+Xwk2+0DYt24G/7pnEanwggAUpKQCAB+/gYA==
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 09:10:59 +0000
Message-ID: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA749E4@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <20130912160455.20829.56903.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <010401ceafd5$9f53b0c0$ddfb1240$@olddog.co.uk> <95299064.1379071967367@mail.labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA6992C@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <02a201ceb3bd$573a6a40$05af3ec0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <02a201ceb3bd$573a6a40$05af3ec0$@olddog.co.uk>
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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA749E4SZXEMA504MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework@tools.ietf.org>, "ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14: (with COMMENT)
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: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 09:11:26 -0000
Hi Adrian, A new version (version 15) has been submitted to address the following comments. For Tomonori's comments, I also sent a mail to describe how to address those comments (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15220.html) a few weeks ago. Please check the version 15 to see if all comments have been addressed correctly. Best Regards Fatai -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:48 PM To: Fatai Zhang; 'Lou Berger' Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework@tools.ietf.org; 'Daniele Ceccarelli'; 'BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)'; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: RE: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14: (with COMMENT) Hello, It looks like I have only been getting some of the emails on this thread. (Lou, is my ISP doing reverse DNS lookup on your emails again?) I *am* hoping to see a revision of this document to pick up: - Changes for Tomonori's Routing Directorate review as recorded in my Comment - The text change I proposed to address Russ' Gen Art review as in Jari's Comment - Spencer's change of "underlined" to "underlying" - A possible piece of text from Lou although it may be he has the docs mixed up Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Fatai Zhang [mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com] > Sent: 14 September 2013 02:02 > To: Lou Berger > Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709- > framework@tools.ietf.org; Daniele Ceccarelli; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); ccamp- > chairs@tools.ietf.org; 'Jari Arkko'; housley@vigilsec.com > Subject: RE: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709- > framework-14: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Lou, > > Thanks. I am waiting for your comments. > > Note that this draft is [G709-FWK] instead of [G709-RSVP], so there is no OAM > new section, :-) > > > > > > Best Regards > > Fatai > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 7:37 PM > To: Fatai Zhang > Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709- > framework@tools.ietf.org; Daniele Ceccarelli; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); ccamp- > chairs@tools.ietf.org; 'Jari Arkko'; housley@vigilsec.com > Subject: Re: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709- > framework-14: (with COMMENT) > > Fatai, > > It looks to me that another rev is needed to cover this comment and some rough > text in the new OAM section. I'll send my comments on the latter within the next > few days. In the interim, others/coauthors should feel free to send their > suggested improvements if they have any. > > Lou > > On 2:12am, September 13, 2013, Fatai Zhang wrote: > > Hi Adrian, > > > > I find it seems that it is not required to update the document for the authors > when I tried to update the document by examining your mail again, :-) > > > > I would like to repeat: It is OK with that text. > > > > Please confirm if the authors need to provide a new version to address the > comments. > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > Fatai > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fatai Zhang > > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 9:56 AM > > To: 'adrian@olddog.co.uk'; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709- > framework@tools.ietf.org; Daniele Ceccarelli; 'BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)' > > Cc: ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org; 'Jari Arkko'; housley@vigilsec.com > > Subject: RE: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709- > framework-14: (with COMMENT) > > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > I am fine with your proposed text. > > > > Will update the document soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > Fatai > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 12:32 AM > > To: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework@tools.ietf.org > > Cc: ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org; 'Jari Arkko'; housley@vigilsec.com > > Subject: RE: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709- > framework-14: (with COMMENT) > > > > Authors, > > > > In discussion with Jari and Russ on today's IESG conference call, we agreed that > including some text like that below would be helpful... > > > > In general, throughout this document, 'ODUj' is used to refer to ODU entities > acting as LO ODU, and 'ODUk' is used to refer to ODU entities being used as HO > ODU. > > > > > > ...Would you be OK with that text (i.e., is it correct!) > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Jari > > > Arkko > > > Sent: 12 September 2013 17:05 > > > To: The IESG > > > Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework@tools.ietf.org; ccamp- > > > chairs@tools.ietf.org > > > Subject: Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709- > framework- > > > 14: (with COMMENT) > > > > > > Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14: No Objection > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > > Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > COMMENT: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Thank you for writing this document, and it is generally ready to move > > > forward. However, I was concerned with one minor detail which seems that > > > there is some unclarity with a term. > > > > > > First, the document says: > > > > > > LO ODU: Lower Order ODU. The LO ODUj (j can be 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4, > > > flex.) represents the container transporting a client of the OTN that > > > is either directly mapped into an OTUk (k = j) or multiplexed into a > > > server HO ODUk (k > j) container. > > > > > > HO ODU: Higher Order ODU. The HO ODUk (k can be 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4.) > > > represents the entity transporting a multiplex of LO ODUj tributary > > > signals in its OPUk area. > > > > > > and then later, it says: > > > > > > With the evolution and > > > deployment of OTN technology many new features have been specified in > > > ITU-T recommendations, including for example, new ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4 > > > and ODUflex containers as described in [G709-2012]. > > > > > > But it is unclear if this is referring to LO or HO ODUs or both, or > > > something else. Could this be clarified, or did I missunderstand > > > something? > > > > > >