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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 25 June 2013 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 7765621F9A71 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 O+pfH9GDguMR for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com [50.87.16.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CEA8F21F9C74 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3243 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jun 2013 18:10:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy12.bluehost.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2013 18:10:06 -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:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=WEuetBYUnEBimSI6vPo5KSlWTCNwWy/Wxq1tDUkoxjc=; b=wFLgydk+lKffOvYw6eennEnVVg04hhhTbrNcTKVKDwpVOky7Ire/m6PRrkkvi3chX//1/eAAEHcSUurrnLm2QjbolTeoemiiBzLJWFexUd2hAuGDDDBOQ6dFSps19gCT;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:36729 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UrXgr-0001VT-Mt; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:10:05 -0600
Message-ID: <51C9DD01.2030605@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:10:09 -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: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480EEBF7@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480EEBF7@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:10:34 -0000

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


> 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.

> 
>> 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.

...

>>
>> 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"?

...

Thanks,
Lou