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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 14 June 2013 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E8021F881F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zYL6CUN65EDC for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3994421F8B35 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10210 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jun 2013 20:04:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) ( by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 14 Jun 2013 20:04:21 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=NR8cJc6LiKovXro3mPB8SEjg80jLZcpA12/8u7QErWU=; b=NANTxzJOxvau0zU3uVbe3Rqbs4cBiZyUBA8FrXfiHg88gj2z/mL5hMq1O/Sum6s2uujRTPMR+4RfKh9+BV9WAv0NCF+te+CoT30uBtJcsiKlVfwDKyIZ/kNTKKSJkMYt;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([]:52679 helo=[]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UnaEP-0007Dt-Aq; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:04:21 -0600
Message-ID: <51BB7741.5060302@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:04:17 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org>
References: <51A8CB9D.40009@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <51A8CB9D.40009@labn.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-info-model (editorial)
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:04:47 -0000

	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
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

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of

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:

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:

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

Line 292:

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

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

Line 464:

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,