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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:28 PM
> To: CCAMP; [e-mail]
> 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>