Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd

Hello Lou,

Please excuse me for the late response (I was in extremely hot
Andalucia this week)

As one of the many contributors to this draft, I reviewed the
most recent version, and comments and I believe it is ready for publication.

Cheers, Huub.

On 14-05-15 16:29, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote:
> Thanks, Ramon.
>
> Changes look good to me!
>
> Cheers
>
> Matt
>
> *From:*CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ramon Casellas
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2015 5:22 AM
> *To:* ccamp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd
>
> Dear Matt, all
>
> Thank you very much for the review and comments, please see inline
> (aligned with Adrian's reply).
>
> For what is worth, there were some comments that I received post LC,
> that will also be in next updated version.
>
>
> El 12/05/2015 a las 0:02, Matt Hartley (mhartley) escribió:
>
>     All,
>
>     I’ve reviewed this revision of the document, and I think it’s almost
>     ready for publication. I have a few comments (below) but I don’t
>     think there’s any major issues.
>
>     3.1: definition of OTN could be moved up to section 2.2, if you want.
>
> Ramon> Added as acronym, and removed the expansion, thank you
>
> 3.2.1: you state that the Nominal Central Frequency Granularity is
> 6.25GHz, but there’s no reference for this. I assume it’s in an ITU doc
> somewhere? If so, it’d be good to say so (and where)
>
> Ramon> Indeed. Much like SWG being 12.5GHz, added [G.694.1]
>
> The document refers to “OTSi signals” in several places, but the
> definition of “OTSi” includes “signal” :) I don’t know whether or not
> this is normal usage or whether it’s worth fixing… but it looks
> technically wrong to me (like people talking about “PIN numbers”
> whenever they get cash out of the bank).
>
> Ramon> changed OTSi signals to OTSi
>
>
> 3.2.5, first bullet: “This group of OTSi should be carried over a single
> fibre.” Is that a normal English should, or a 2219 SHOULD? If the
> former, it might be worth rephrasing to avoid ambiguity.
>
> Ramon> changed to "are" as per Adrian's suggestion
>
> 4.2: “The association of the three components a filter, a fiber, and a
> filter, is a media channel in its most basic form.”. It’d be nice to
> clarify that this is a fiber with a filter at each end – that’s not
> immediately obvious on first reading, especially with the diagram that
> makes it clear on the next page.
>
> Ramon> Likewise, changed to "association sequence"
>
>
> The paragraph below figure 8 is... unclear. Is it just trying to say
> that media channels can be joined together to make a new media channel?
> Or is there more to it than that?
>
> Ramon> Basically the intent is that one, although it should reflect more
> to the join of "basic" media channels (defined as an association
> sequence of filter-fiber-filter as above). This, and the architectural
> construct being an LSP.  Changed to also use the term "association sequence"
>
> OLD
>
>     Additionally, when a cross-connect for a specific frequency slot is
>
>     considered, the underlying media support is still a media channel,
>
>     augmented, so to speak, with a bigger association of media elements
>
>     and a resulting effective slot.  When this media channel is the
>
>     result of the association of basic media channels and media layer
>
>     matrix cross-connects, this architectural construct can be
>
>     represented as (i.e., corresponds to) a Label Switched Path (LSP)
>
>     from a control plane perspective.  In other words, It is possible to
>
>     "concatenate" several media channels (e.g., Patch on intermediate
>
>     nodes) to create a single media channel.
>
>
> NEW
>
>     Additionally, when a cross-connect for a specific frequency slot is
>
>     considered, the resulting media support of joining basic media channels
>
>     is still a media channel, i.e., a longer association sequence of media
>
>     elements and its effective frequency slot. In other words, It is possible to
>
>     "concatenate" several media channels (e.g., patch on intermediate
>
>     nodes) to create a single media channel.
>
>
>
>     The architectural construct resulting of the association sequence
>
>     of basic media channels and media layer matrix cross-connects can be
>
>     represented as (i.e., corresponds to) a Label Switched Path (LSP)
>
>     from a control plane perspective.
>
>
>
>
> Fig 12: OTSi trail? Did you mean OCh trail?
>
> Ramon> The error comes from the text, since the correct term is OTSi.
>
> OLD
>
>     In Figure 12 a Network Media Channel is represented as terminated at
>
>     the DWDM side of the transponder.  This is commonly named as OCh-
>
>     trail connection.
>
>
>
> NEW
>
>     In Figure 12 a Network Media Channel is represented as terminated at
>
>     the network side of the transponders.  This is commonly named as OTSi-
>
>     trail connection.
>
>
>
> Fig 14: MLN/MRN needs explaining. Or removing.
>
> Ramon> Removed.
>
> 4.3, towards the end: “there must be enough guard band between adjacent
> OTSis in any media channel to compensate filter concatenation effect and
> other effects caused by signal layer switching elements”. Maybe “…to
> compensate for the filter concatenation effect and…” or “…to compensate
> for filter concatenation effects and…”?
>
> Ramon> new text
> "there must be  enough guard band between adjacent OTSis in any media
> channel to  compensate for the filter concatenation effects and other
> effects caused by signal layer switching elements"
>
>
> 4.8.4: bear in mind that 0 is not a positive integer, and it looks like
> the definitions involving (2^n) and (2^m) are intended to include the
> case where n/m is 0.
>
> Ramon> Changed for "n" to say "non-negative integer". For "m", I am
> leaving it as positive integer, since m=0 would imply an empty frequency
> slot.
>
>
> If no further comments, I will proceed to upload these changes for -04
> (with other backlogged changes such as affiliation changes, CCAMP WG,
> Informational, nits, editorial changes , typos, etc. ). Please see the
> attached diff
>
>
> Thanks
> Ramon
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>

-- 
*****************************************************************
               请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样