Re: [CCAMP] WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-05

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Scott Mansfield <[e-mail]>
Sent: 04 July 2023 14:40

Tom,
Thank you for your comprehensive review of the last-call draft.  Please see comments and resolutions to your comments inline below (marked by <editors></editors>

Let us know if this is satisfactory, or if there is more clarification needed.

<tp>

Looks good apart from s.3.4 where the reference that I would like added is for
Data Model for Traffic Engineering Topologies
ie the one that is being augmented.

I take your point about L1 Ethernet!

Tom Petch

Regards,
-scott.

Snip...

<tp3>
A follow up to an earlier comment of mine relating to
       leaf actual-transmitted-level {
          type decimal64 {
            fraction-digits 1;
            range "0..99";
I was unsure if the maximum value was then 99.9 or 99.0 so I asked on the NETMOD list and the answer is 99.0.  I note that the same construct is used in RFC8561 so I assume that 99.0 is a magic number in microwave.

<editors>
The leaf actual-transmitted-level is read-only data, that can take on several different values including negative values.  So, since this is not configuration data, the editors suggest simply removing the range statement, and modifying the description to provide guidance on how to interpret the value.
</editors>


<tp2>
One more thought.  The Appendices would benefit from a reference to RFC8792.

<editors>
Agreed, since the tool to fold the text in the examples is used.  Add {{?RFC8792}} </editors>


<tp>
8561 is an import so must be a Normative reference

  "ETSI EN 302 217-1 -
  "ETSI EN 301 129   -
need adding as references as a URL so I can see if they are accessible

<editors>
Add {{!RFC8561}}

Add the following to the markdown for the ETSI references to the Normative reference section:
  EN 302 217-1:
    title: Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics and requirements for point-to-point equipment and antennas; Part 1: Overview, common characteristics and requirements not related to access to radio spectrum
    author:
      org: ETSI
    date: June 2021
    seriesinfo: ETSI EN 302 217-1
    target: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/302200_302299/30221701/03.03.00_20/en_30221701v030300a.pdf

  EN 301 129:
    title: Transmission and Multiplexing (TM); Digital Radio Relay Systems (DRRS); Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH); System performance monitoring parameters of SDH DRRS
    author:
      org: ETSI
    date: May 1999
    seriesinfo: ETSI EN 301 129
    target: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301100_301199/301129/01.01.02_60/en_301129v010102p.pdf

</editors>

1.1
should include
ctp
rlt
rltp
snir
<editors>
ctp: Carrier Termination Point
rlt: Radio Link terminal
rltp: Radio Link Termination Point
snir: Signal Noise Interference Ratio
</editors>

carries, in various configurations/modes.  T perhaps 'carriers'

.  The supporting carriers are identified by its termination points /its/their/ <editors> Yes, fix the typos.
</editors>

s.3.3
L2 ethernet
Is there an Ethernet that is a different layer?
<editors>
There is a distinction between L2 ethernet and L1 ethernet in the microwave area, so suggest no change to the use of L2 ethernet.
</editors>

s.3.4
augmented by the microwave topology model a reference would be useful <editors> The microwave topology model is the model being defined by this ID. So no reference is needed. Maybe change the wording to "augmented by THIS microwave topology model"  (note: all caps only for emphasis, not for draft) </editors>

module
snir
            fraction-digits 1;
            range "0..99";
I imagine that that excludes 99.9 or 99.1 etc

actual transmitted level
ditto
<editors>
For snir and action-transmitted-level:  Same as point 1, remove the range statement and update the description statement.
</editors>

when choices specify mw-tp mw-link is one of the choice mandatory?
<editors>
Agreed, should make each choice statement mandatory, that would enforce one option to be chosen when configuring.
</editors>

apply only for networks with an          microwave network topology type
/an/a/
<editors>
Fix typo
</editors>

A.1
10.10.10.1
is not an address for documentation use
A.2
dirro
B.1
ditto
<editors>
Agreed, use https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt, so addresses like 192.0.2.1 & 192.0.2.2 in the examples.
</editors>

The authors would like to thank ...
<editors>
We will add thanks and acknowledgements.
</editors>

Regards,
-scott. (on the behalf of the Authors of the microwave topology draft)