Re: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Italo,

Thanks for your reply and some actions. Nevertheless, I still find that the draft title is really misleading.

As the authors, the CCAMP WG/AD, and the IETF Last Call think that it is not confusing, then I am balloting an ABSTAIN in the coming minutes.

Regards

-éric

On 14/02/2024, 14:17, "Italo Busi" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Dear Eric, 


Thank you for the review, the authors have updated the document to address your comments and posted the updated document as draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-17 


Updates include:


- Added clarification text for "Layer 1" networks to avoid confusion of the Title
- Expanded the Security and highlighted that write operations without proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations


Again, thanks for the support and review. 


Authors, Haomian and Italo.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: martedì 12 dicembre 2023 10:19
> To: The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: Discuss
> 
> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot- <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot->
> positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/>
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for raft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document. As I am not an optical expert,
> I
> have only reviewed the overall structure.
> 
> Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), and one
> non-blocking COMMENT point.
> 
> Special thanks to Daniel King for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
> the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.
> 
> Other thanks to Dirk Von Hugo, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
> request), please consider this int-dir review:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-intdir- <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-intdir->
> telechat-von-hugo-2023-12-09/
> (even if only nits, it would be nice to see a reply from the authors)
> 
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> # DISCUSS (blocking)
> 
> As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/>, a
> DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:
> 
> ## Layer 1 vs. OTN
> 
> The I-D title and the abstract first sentence (as well as CCAMP charter) are
> misleading: it is *not* about generic layer-1 but only about a very specific
> one: OTN. I.e., the content does not match the wrapping, please update the
> title and the abstract.
> 
> Obviously, this is not a DISCUSS level point but I want to get a discussion
> with the authors and the responsible AD(s) before clearing my ballot to
> either
> NoObj (if the scope is changed) or to abstain (if text/title is unchanged).
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # COMMENTS (non-blocking)
> 
> ## Section 7
> 
> Should the writable data nodes be listed with the associated security
> vulnerabilities ? Per https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>
> 
> 
>