Subject: [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09
From: Fatai Zhang <[email-masked]>
To: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>, CCAMP <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:32:21 +0000
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>

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: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Lou Berger
发送时间: 2012年10月20日 7:06
收件人: CCAMP; [email-masked]
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. 

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. 

- Please use a consistent decimal representation (sometimes commas are
used other times periods)

[Fatai] Checked and commas are used.

- 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.
-
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.

- 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
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp