IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd

"Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com> Wed, 20 January 2016 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mhartley@cisco.com>
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 621D01ACE74 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:00:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 N2KpE7m5Hn59 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5FB21ACE59 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:59:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14284; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1453323599; x=1454533199; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=2dmIv99W65TBEy00nv+eMvuOE/Mn0Zm2fK7dUKrw0CY=; b=byhXGUTC2E05cC+G0JSwCjrmiZBl6PHgFJLrTWReqIfBiVFQtA4hYiCF DRb50yatVFhx7BbXh33H6vzmbBhkMc+Ytb4IgNYlCgUZ+GBrM/GmBRuEo NzwDAkhwTDmw1/et/AkKLlQR8Ld8E4IQr73aXS88arIQlbzz2S8rG978j w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AnAgBw9J9W/5hdJa1egm5MUm0GiFGwIYITAQ2BZCSFawKBRDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEEHRBBCxACAQgRBAEBKAcyFAkIAgQBDQUIiBMOvh4BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEVhjqEdIR+CYQFBZJ/hAUBhUeIEIFlhESIXopsg1QBHgEBQoIygTVqAYYVAXsBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.22,322,1449532800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="65585077"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jan 2016 20:59:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0KKxwW5031488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:59:58 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:59:57 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 14:59:57 -0600
From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd
Thread-Index: AQIY0oApDZeHSRfZ63P7HMKZDMQFhp50Fq/wgAHO5pA=
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:59:57 +0000
Message-ID: <aede59a1a8ed4b52a0d97b0f30a22992@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4812B4D05C@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <01bf01d152e1$4bb9ebd0$e32dc370$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <01bf01d152e1$4bb9ebd0$e32dc370$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.213.95]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_aede59a1a8ed4b52a0d97b0f30a22992XCHRCD001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/QjuJFkCMtkWvn4OLFbwdM3BCcDw>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:00:03 -0000

Thanks, Adrian. We'll make the changes you suggest after LC (the G.sup43 one pending confirmation).

Cheers

Matt

From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 12:46 PM
To: 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>; 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd

Thanks Daniele.

It would be nice as a general principle to have the document nit-free before last call, but anyway, the authors can handle that as part of the last call comments and make the necessary fixes before the I-D goes forward. Maybe the same applies to the formatting, page breaks and so on?

I reviewed and commented on this document some time back and it appears to be much better now. Thanks to the authors.

Here are some nits...

The Abstract is full of abbreviations that will need to be expanded.

The text uses the term "draft" to describe itself. If you change this to be "document" it will remain consistent when the I-D becomes an RFC.

It would be nice if the IANA considerations section gave IANA a little more help. Specifically...
IANA maintains a registry called "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" with a subregistry called "OTN Signal Type". IANA is requested to make three further allocations from that registry as follows.
You might also give IANA guidance about which numbers to allocate as they will want to know whether to use the unassigned values in the 12-19 range or values in the 23-255 range. They will also wonder about 5.

I don't see how G.sup43 can be other than a normative reference. It looks to me from http://www.itu.int/itu-t/recommendations/rec.aspx?rec=11321 that the revision you reference is actually in force (i.e., not "for agreement").

And lastly (I'm sure we've had this discussion before) the registry is marked with the Registration Procedure "Standards Action" yet this document is marked as "Informational". That will mean that IANA will (should) refuse to assign the code points.

Cheers,
Adrian



From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 19 January 2016 10:47
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>)
Subject: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd

Working group,

Thanks to the prompt reply from the authors we're ready to start the WG last for this document.

This starts a two weeks working group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02.
The last call ends on Tuesday  February 2nd.
Please send your comments to the CCAMP mailing list.

All the IPR declarations from authors and contributors have been collected and can be found in the history of the document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3/history/
Please note that no IPR was disclosed against this draft.

If anyone is willing to be the shepherd of the document, please volunteer.



Thanks

Daniele & Fatai

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email