Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 06 February 2014 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE731A02B2 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:45:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xPiDm2mhGANX for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alt-proxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com (alt-proxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com [66.147.240.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 903E11A02A6 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 8463 invoked by uid 0); 6 Feb 2014 00:45:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy14.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2014 00:45:47 -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=bCTtBqPJ8HewfMFdqf+FnswmPnIcgyWNcmKQoUGbEnk=; b=M0wCJmESu86vsrE2GBeFRSxflalAe8Hej2IHOUUAlnX3Ud7+7iSz0O5kYAWT6wcamBIQUozoG5XKB8po+IiCL3cfpQC8EecvtgD84Z7203VNAMF2AK7FqpPNQiHIxRh9;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:49915 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1WBD6A-000497-PV; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:45:46 -0700
Message-ID: <52F2DB39.10800@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 19:45:45 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@tools.ietf.org>
References: <524AF9A9.3040006@labn.net> <5266E138.8080605@labn.net> <526FFE35.70404@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB5F49@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB5F49@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
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 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 06 Feb 2014 00:45:55 -0000

Young,

I think just one comment:

CURRENT:
   The format of Label is required of the use of the label format
   defined in [RFC6205] for interfaces advertised with WSON-LSC.
NEW
   The label format defined in [RFC6205] MUST be used when
   advertising interfaces with a WSON-LSC type Switching Capability.

Lou

On 2/3/2014 7:22 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
> Please see inline for my comments. Here's the working version and the idnits results.
> 
> Let me know if this is ready for publication.
> 
> Thanks.
> Young
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:28 PM
> To: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf
> 
> Authors,
> 	I have some comments on this document. Many are strictly editorial. Note that I'm the document shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more information.
> 
> - Please address my general comments on the WSON document set
> 
> YOUNG>> Done.
> 
> - In two places
>   s/These routing enhancements are required/These routing enhancements are applicable
> 
> YOUNG>> Done. 
> 
> - Do you want to reference
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te? Perhaps in the intro.
> 
> YOUNG>> Added in the introduction section, "Related to this document is [GEN-OSPF] which provides GMPLS OSPF routing enhancements to support the generic routing and label assignment process that can be applicable to a wider range of technologies beyond WSON."
> 
> - Section 2, SUB-TLV ordering
>   Looks like this ordering matches rwa-info, even though the encoding
>   document doesn't. (Suggest the encoding document be fixed.)
> 
> YOUNG>> Yes. WSON encode is now matching with info and OSPF. 
> 
> - Section 2 says:
> 
>    All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given
>    Optical Node TLV. "At most once" means that if there is sub-TLV
>    related information, it should be always included.
> 
>    The second sentence reads to me to be closer to "at least once".
>    "At most once" means no more than one time. Please clarify your
>    intent.
> 
> YOUNG>> How about: 
> 
>    "All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given 
>    Optical Node TLV. If more than one copy of a sub-TLV is received, 
>    only the first one of the same type is accommodated and the rest 
>    are ignored upon receipt." 
> 
> - Section 2.1: title
>   s/Sub-TLV Details/Resource Block Information
> 
> YOUNG>> Corrected. 
> 
> - Section 2.1, 1st paragraph
>   Looks like this belongs at the end of the section 2 (intro)
> 
> YOUNG>> Moved to the end of the Section 2. 
> 
> - Section 2.1, should be sub-sub-tlv, and there are 4 not 3 or 5
> 
>    There are four nested sub-sub-TLVs defined in the Resource Block
>    Information sub-TLV.
> 
>    Value          Length      sub-Sub-TLV Type
> 
>   also add lines for "Input Bit Rate List"
> 
> YOUNG>> Done.
> 
> 
> - Sections 2.1.1->2.1.4
>   shouldn't these be sections 2.2 -> 2.5?
> 
> YOUNG>> Not sure these numberings, but we have the following headers: (Note: 2.2-2.5 were promoted from the Level 3 header as they are the same level as Resource Block Information.) 
> 
> 2. The Optical Node Property TLV	
> 2.1. Resource Block Information	
> 2.2. Resource Accessibility	
> 2.3. Resource Wavelength Constraints	
> 2.4. Resource Block Pool State	
> 2.5. Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability	
> 
> 
> 
> - Section 2.1.3
>   Drop "16 bit"
> 
> YOUNG>> Dropped. 
> 
> - Section 3:
>   Don't you want to require the use of the RFC6205 defined label format
>   for interfaces advertised with  WSON-LSC?
> 
> YOUNG>> I think this makes sense to put in Section 3.1 as this section discusses the label format. 
> Added: "The format of Label is required of the use of the label format defined in [RFC6205] for interfaces advertised with WSON-LSC." 
> 
> - Section 6:
>   Acee's comment on IANA applies here too. (Should look at his other
>   comments too and see if they apply to this document.)
> 
> YOUNG>> Added. 
> 
> That's it on this one,
> Lou
> 
> On 10/22/2013 4:34 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>
>> All,
>> 	Given the recent draft submission deadline and only one comment being 
>> received to date, we'd like to extend the WG more time for review.
>>
>> These drafts represent significant work by the authors and WG, so 
>> please review and let the WG know what you think (positive or negative)!
>>
>> Please have all comments in by October 29.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Lou (and Deborah)
>>
>> On 10/1/2013 12:34 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This mail begins working group last call on the WSON documents.  As 
>>> there are 6 documents in this set, the last call will be three weeks.
>>> The documents included in the last call are:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-18
>>> (Informational, IPR Disclosed)
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
>>> -11
>>> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-21
>>> (Standards Track)
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints
>>> -ospf-te-05
>>> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility
>>> -ospf-12
>>> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-06 
>>> (Standards
>>> Track) Also has one open issue that will need to be resolved as part 
>>> of LC, see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/ticket/52.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it 
>>> is ready for publication", are welcome!
>>>
>>> Please note that we're still missing some IPR statements.  Any 
>>> forthcoming publication request will be delayed by late IPR 
>>> statements/disclosures.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Lou (and Deborah)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>