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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 13 November 2012 13:56 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 2344A21F8651 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 05:56:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.421
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.790, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LmTo3t51A6Dl for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 05:56:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 82E6321F846D for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 05:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 846 invoked by uid 0); 13 Nov 2012 13:56:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2012 13:56:03 -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=LvI0cyGcww8RNdZdwfKKCZQ1JOxKKQ+/ZlAuCLY4Bko=; b=tyjvqAPw6NXYA4vf1rL2qLhu5zSslFEB7YdHcN6l9ibUb1UfMV0HnoMtnJ7tnUFdXMaUHjMVWKe8ZhBTpuzcN6pN+KKYNLcBSnLitkQPk/Ok/8tPY77XdOYtKxVO7wlX;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:46148 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1TYGyA-00045E-T6; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:56:03 -0700
Message-ID: <50A25171.9060709@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:56:01 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework@tools.ietf.org>
References: <50733BED.8090304@labn.net> <5081DCC1.60202@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF83582F514@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF83582F514@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
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>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIFdHIExhc3QgQ2FsbCBjb21tZW50cyBvbiBk?= =?gb2312?b?cmFmdC1pZXRmLWNjYW1wLWdtcGxzLWc3MDktZnJhbWV3b3JrLTA5?=
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, 13 Nov 2012 13:56:29 -0000

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: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Lou Berger
> 发送时间: 2012年10月20日 7:06
> 收件人: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework@tools.ietf.org
> 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
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>