[CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 23 August 2013 18:25 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 CD69221F9B03 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Z8ls-wDUm6CD for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9668B11E80C5 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7NIOrvN010404; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:24:53 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7NIOpDd010394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:24:52 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:24:47 +0100
Message-ID: <04eb01cea02e$0d005b30$27011190$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac6gLgpkZoIREJ3nTwOKEbtl2Arm1A==
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 18:25:02 -0000
Hi authors and working group, I have done my usual AD review on receiving a publication request for this document to smooth out any issues before IETF last call and IESG evaluation. As you'll see below, I have a few small issues that I would like to work through. The result will either be some email discussion where you convince me that no change is needed, or a revised version of the document. Thanks for the work, Adrian === I have a thread with the authors about why they need to list nine authors on the front page. The RFC Editor has a norm of no more than five unless there is a specific reason. --- This document does not update 4203. Extending mechanisms is not an update, and this document doesn't really even extend the mechanisms; it simply defines a new ISCD and describes how it is used. --- Section 2 has a reference to [swcaps-update]. I suspect this is meant to be draft-ietf-ccamp-swcaps-update. You need to add this to the informative references section. --- Section 2 is wrongly named! The section does describe the requirements, but there is actually nothing in the section that is specific to OSPF and certainly no description of OSPF extensions. I found the material useful, but wondered why it was in this document and not in the information model document since it perfectly describes the information model that needs to be applied. I am not requiring you to do anything about this, but I would ask you think hard about whether this text should be moved to the other document and simply pointed to from here. --- Section 3 is a fine and concise section. But it seems to me that this material also belongs in the information model document, not here. Again, I am not requiring you to make a change here, but please think about whether the section could be moved and replaced with a pointer. --- Section 4 OLD - Encoding Type = G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) [as defined in RFC4328] NEW - Encoding Type = G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) as defined in [RFC4328] END --- The description of the table in section 4 caused me some grief. You have... The bandwidth unit is in bytes per second and the encoding MUST be in Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) floating point format. The discrete values for various ODUs is shown in the table below. Could you please do two things: 1. Remind the reader that there are 1000 bits in a kbit according to normal practices in telecommunications. (Probably add a note to the quoted text.) 2. Clarify that the third column shows a floating point value. (Update the column heading.) However, I do also note that the use of bandwidth in section 4.1.3 are described as (for example)... This field MUST be set to the bandwidth, in bits/s in IEEE floating point format, available at the indicated Signal Type for a particular priority level. So you also need to sort that out. --- Section 4. In the table, could you fix up the notation of ODU3 to use 0x not 0X --- I wonder whether the text and figure for the example in Figure 10 needs its own section. --- I think there are some issues (or possibly some unspoken points) with section 6. 1. Suppose you have an old implementation. How will it treat these new advertisements? For this you are just stating facts. There is nothing you can define because you cannot influence how old implementations work. But you can say how they will behave according to existing specs. 2. If a new implementation only supports this spec and not RFC 4328 how will it handle an RFC 4328 advertisement? This is something you can and must describe. 3. For a new implementation that supports this spec and RFC 4328, I don't understand what you have written. When nodes support both advertisement methods, implementations MUST support the configuration of which advertisement method is followed. I *think* this says that - a node MUST NOT use more than one advertisement method to advertise the resources on a single OTN link It also appears to say that - a node MUST NOT use more than one advertisement method to advertise across *all* of its advertisements You go on to say... This enables nodes following each method to identify similar supporting nodes and compute paths using only the appropriate nodes. ...which seems to imply that it is not possible to compute a path end-to-end across nodes using a mix of the old and new advertisement types. Is that *really* what you want to say? --- It might be helpful to break section 8 into subsections. --- Section 8 For the new Switching Type you need to remind IANA to make the update in the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib --- Section 8 Upon approval of this document, IANA will create and maintain a new registry, the "Types for sub-TLVs of OTN-TDM SCSI (Switch Capability Specific Information)" registry under the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry, see http://www.iana.org/ assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs.xml, with the TLV types as follows: This document defines new TLV types as follows: Value Sub-TLV Reference --------- -------------------------- ---------- 0 Reserved [This.I-D] 1. What does "Reserved" mean? Does it mean "Reserved and not to be allocated"? Does it mean "Reserved but a future RFC may assign it"? Does it mean "Unassigned and available for normal allocation"? You need to decide and make it clear for IANA 2. IANA will need to know what the range of available values is. 3 up to what limit?
- [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-o… Daniele Ceccarelli