Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

On 11/13/2012 8:24 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
> Regarding [G709-v1] reference, there is only general reference to [G709-v1] and [G709-v1a1], ie., no specific text is referenced from some specific place of these two documents, so we reused the same approach used by [RFC4328], otherwise, [G709-v1] and [G709-v1a1] should be used together to replace the alone [G709-v1] (because it is really difficult to differentiate either [G709-v1] or [G709-v1a1] should be referenced). 
> 
> Here is the referenced used by [RFC4328]: 
> [ITUT-G709] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)," G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1), February 2001 (October 2001).
> 
> Is that acceptable for you?
> 

I don't understand how one reference can be used for two documents.  I
suspect this slipped by the RFC editor.  I think it makes most sense to
have one reference per document.

> In addition, the nits will be resolved in the next update.

Thanks.

Lou

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Fatai
> 
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> 发送时间: 2012年11月13日 21:56
> 收件人: Fatai Zhang; [e-mail]
> 抄送: CCAMP
> 主题: Re: 答复: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09
> 
> Fatai, Authors,
> 	Thank you for the update.  Please see below for specific responses.
> 
> On 11/13/2012 1:32 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
>> Hi Lou and all, 
>>
>> A new version has been submitted with the udpates based on the comments from Lou.
>>
>> Please see more in-line below marked with [Fatai]. 
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Fatai
>>
>>
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Lou Berger
>> 发送时间: 2012年10月20日 7:06
>> 收件人: CCAMP; [e-mail]
>> 主题: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09
>>
>> Authors,
>> 	I have the following LC comments:
>>
>>
>> General comment:
>> - I have a comment related to the info document, that I'll cover in a
>> separate mail on the info-model document .
>>
>> - I found appendix A to not be very informative and thing there are
>> better examples in the other documents, suggest either moving one ore
>> more to this document or drop the appendix.
>>
>> [Fatai] The appendix has been dropped, because we think it is better to keep the examples in the other documents. 
>>
> 
> Okay.  You might want to have a reference to examples in other documents
> where appropriate.
> 
>> The remaining comments are editorial in nature
>>
>> - Please verify that abbreviations are defined before being used .
>> There are a number of these.
>>
>> [Fatai] Checked and updated. 
> 
> great.
> 
>>
>> - Please use a consistent decimal representation (sometimes commas are
>> used other times periods)
>>
>> [Fatai] Checked and commas are used.
> 
> okay.
> 
>>
>> - the references [G709-v1] and [G709-v3] each actually refer to multiple
>> documents, each documented needs to have it's own (correct) reference,
>> i.g., [G709-v1] and [G709-v1a1]. The document text will need to be
>> revisited to ensure the proper reference is made.
>>
>> [Fatai] [G709-V3A2] is introduced and referenced in the right place.
> 
> It looks like v1 still has this issue.
> 
>> -
>> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09.txt
>> shows there are unresolved nits that need to resolved .  I'm using line
>> numbers from this url in my subsequent comments.
> 
> In your next update, please resolve the nits as reported in
> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-10.txt
> 
> The rest looks good.
> 
> Much thanks,
> Lou
> 
>>
>> - Line 46: How about replace "as consented in October 2009" with "as
>> published in 2009."
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Line 255: Drop "approved in 2009" the reference is sufficient
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Line 260: suggest the following change:
>> OLD
>>                 2.5Gb/s     1.25Gb/s           Nominal Bit rate
>> NEW
>>                 Time Slot Granularity
>>                 2.5Gb/s     1.25Gb/s           Nominal Bit rate
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Lines 272-274: Please add the appropriate reference to G.709 section
>> or table that points to where one finds the information on determining
>> actual bit rate.
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Line 307: suggest changing "into the OTUk" --> "into a specific OTUk"
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Line 340/1: need a reference to where this is defined.
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted and added.
>>
>> - Line 346-347: Need a reference to where this behavior is defined.
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted and added.
>>
>> - Lines 387/388.  Isn't this sentence OBE and should be dropped?
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Page 11, RWA is used in a few places on this page as is OCh layer,
>> suggest replacing all instances of RWA with OCH or "OCh layer".
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Line 500: what do you mean by "including OCh layer visibility."? this
>> isn't really reflected in the solutions documents (other than as MLN).
>>
>> [Fatai] Deleted to avoid ambiguity. 
>>
>> - Line 589: replace "New label" with "A new label format"
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Line 636: replace "some" with "sufficient"
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Lines 639-641: drop lines (seems redundant with following paragraph)
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted and dropped.
>>
>> - Line 686: your usage of "just" is a bit odd, how about replace "be
>> just switched" with "restricted to switching"
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Line 688: similarly how about replace "just terminated" to "restricted
>> to termination"
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - lines 714-719, probably should have a reference to [rfc4201]
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Line 879: Replace "contrary" with "opposite" or "reverse"
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Line 888. I suggest adding "Although, this is not greater than the
>> risks presented by the existing OTN control plane as defined by
>> [RFC4203] and [RFC4328]."
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Lines 888-890, I suggest dropping the sentence starting with "The data
>> plane technology..." for multiple reasons, not least of which is that
>> the ITU-T owns the data plane so the comment is completely out of scope.
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> - Lines 1081/2: The whole document is non-normative, so just drop this
>> sentence.
>>
>> [Fatai] Accepted.
>>
>> That's it on this document.
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> On 10/8/2012 4:47 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> This mail begins a two week working group last call on:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09
>>> (Informational)
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-04
>>> (Informational)
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-03
>>> (Standards Track)
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04
>>> (Standards Track)
>>>
>>> This working group last call ends on October 22.  Comments should be
>>> sent to the CCAMP mailing list.  Please remember to include the
>>> technical basis for any comments.
>>>
>>> Please note that we're still missing a few IPR statements, and look
>>> for these to come in during the LC period.  Any forthcoming publication
>>> request will be delayed by late IPR statements/disclosures.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Lou (and Deborah)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>