Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)

Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> Thu, 04 July 2013 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.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 B11F121F9F6B for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 02:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.825, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 veyi-Y3QtQ6E for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 02:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31ED721F9F5F for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 02:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7ef76d000004bbc-28-51d53cb448d1
Received: from ESESSHC010.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 23.43.19388.4BC35D15; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 11:13:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.30]) by ESESSHC010.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.48]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 4 Jul 2013 11:13:23 +0200
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)
Thread-Index: AQHOaT5Cf8xlCy0KhEe413e0mrGZ+Zk5kc0QgAADdACAAAOEYIANEauAgA2k98A=
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 09:13:22 +0000
Message-ID: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480FD0A0@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480EEBF7@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <51C9DD01.2030605@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <51C9DD01.2030605@labn.net>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre4Wm6uBBmu2yFg8mXODxeJvw2sW i47mtywOzB5Llvxk8viwqZnN48vlz2wBzFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGUd3yBUslKj4fWcXYwPj O6EuRk4OCQETicW3ZjNB2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjMKHF42VdGCGcRo8TphdtZuhg5ONgErCSe HPIBaRARUJT4+nERE0gNs0A7o8Ssho2sIAlhATeJla0XmCGK3CX+bboNZftJ9DQ/ZgGxWQRU JD6taAKr5xXwlti5thPsCiGBTIntJ6cwgticAhoSrae/sYHYjAKyEhN2LwKLMwuIS9x6Mh/q agGJJXvOM0PYohIvH/9jhbAVJXaebWeGqNeTuDF1ChuErS2xbOFrZoi9ghInZz5hmcAoNgvJ 2FlIWmYhaZmFpGUBI8sqRvbcxMyc9HLzTYzAuDm45bfBDsZN98UOMUpzsCiJ827WOxMoJJCe WJKanZpakFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgTH62J+Otu32d5UPrAk1ve3bcOdMoaidsur7iz+sxZvt 322oPlzUk+fymkW0Y3J5n7bKh+MRL6+/9jd4Ly7+19YoK8f9ehevWfniMzoTLm3+z+7toRg6 T7A/bGH0Z1Nv5Xf7Tov2t26dE7b82y4D8ZergtbOKC+PfNb0Wsq28d0nhvi6ldN8niixFGck GmoxFxUnAgDZp6KiaQIAAA==
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)
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: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 09:13:32 -0000

Hi Lou, CCAMP,

A new version of the draft has been uploaded addressing the comments below.

BR
Daniele

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: martedì 25 giugno 2013 20:10
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli
> Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)
> 
> 
> Daniele,
> 
> Please see below.  I trimmed the text down a bit, let me know if I missed any
> discussion points.
> 
> On 6/25/2013 5:59 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > All comments addressed. Some comments in line below.
> >
> 
> Much thanks:
> 
> The following nits will need to be fixed in the next rev (and before going to
> the IESG)
> 
>   == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 1162, but not defined
> 
>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC4202' is defined on line 1237, but no explicit
>      reference was found in the text
> 
done 

> 
> > BR
> > Daniele
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> >> Sent: venerdì 14 giugno 2013 22.32
> >> To: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
> >> Subject: 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> The following are comments as part of my LC review of
> >> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-06.  Note that I'm the document
> >> shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more information.
> >>
> >> Please see
> >> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft
> > -ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-06.txt
> >> for line numbers used in this message.
> ...
> 
> >> Lines 192/3:
> >>  "The TE-Link is referred to as OTUk-TE-Link."
> >>  This term is used just once in the document.  Suggest dropping it.
> >>
> >
> > OK
> still TBD.	
I don't know why it was still there. Removed now.

> 
> >
> >> Lines 193/4:
> >>  Doesn't the TE link for an OTUk physical Link always provide ODUk
> >> capacity? Either way this text needs to be fixed/clarified.
> >
> > What about dropping all of this text:
> > The TE-Link is
> > 193    referred to as OTUk-TE-Link.  The OTUk-TE-Link advertises ODUj
> > 194    switching capacity.  The advertised capacity could include ODUk
> > 195    switching capacity.
> sure.
> 
> ...
Done

> 
> >>
> >> Lines 210-212,221:
> >>  ODUj vs ODUk.  Isn't it the case that a multi hop TE link could
> >> represent either ODUj or ODUk resources?  This isn't clear from the
> >> current text/usage of ODUj/k.
> >>
> >
> >
> > New text:
> >
> >        It is possible to create TE-Links that span more than one hop
> > by creating  FA between non-adjacent nodes.
> >  As in the one hop case, these types of ODUk-TE-Links also advertise
> > ODU switching  capacity.
> 
> why not just align with the figure name and use "Multiple hop TE-Link"
> rather than introduce a new otherwise unused term "ODUk-TE-Links"?
> 
> ...
Agree. Modified accordingly
> 
> Thanks,
> Lou