Re: [CCAMP] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: (with COMMENT)

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Dear Lars, 

Thank you for the review, the authors have updated the document to address your comments and posted the updated document as draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-17.

Updates include:

- Added clarification text for "Layer 1" networks to avoid confusion of the Title
- Addressed the grammer and issues highlighted below

Again, thanks for the support and review. 

Authors, Haomian and Italo.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: giovedì 14 dicembre 2023 13:45
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [CCAMP] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-
> types-16: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16
> 
> CC @larseggert
> 
> Thanks to Dale R. Worley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> review
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/qjQFh6-
> iwZhg106VN_AjpNH1Br8).
> 
> ## Comments
> 
> Agree with Éric on the overly unspecific title and abstract.
> 
> Also, has another YANG Doctors review happened since -04, as raised by
> Dale
> Worley in his GEN-ART review (to which I have not seen a response)?
> 
> ## Nits
> 
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may
> choose to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
> did with these suggestions.
> 
> ### Outdated references
> 
> Document references `draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-04`, but `-07` is the
> latest available revision.
> 
> Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model-18`, but `-20` is
> the
> latest available revision.
> 
> Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-16`,
> but
> `-17` is the latest available revision.
> 
> Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang-09`, but `-10` is the
> latest available revision.
> 
> Document references `draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16`, but `-17` is the
> latest available revision.
> 
> ### Grammar/style
> 
> #### Section 4.2, paragraph 10
> ```
> ble on a link, as described in Section Section 4.4. This grouping could be u
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> Possible typo: you repeated a word.
> 
> #### Section 4.2, paragraph 14
> ```
> o be provided, as described in Section Section 4.4. This grouping could be u
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> Possible typo: you repeated a word.
> 
> #### Section 4.3, paragraph 7
> ```
> me cases, the TPN assignment rules depends on the TS Granularity (e.g.,
> ODU2
>                                    ^^^^^^^
> ```
> The verb form "depends" does not seem to match the subject "rules".
> 
> #### Section 4.4, paragraph 1
> ```
> ominal bit rate to be defined independently from the type of ODUflex. This
> co
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> The usual collocation for "independently" is "of", not "from". Did you mean
> "independently of"?
> 
> #### Section 4.4, paragraph 4
> ```
> the value of 'gfp-n', is used to calculated the ODUflex(GFP,n,k) nominal bit
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> The verb after "to" should be in the base form.
> 
> #### Section 4.4, paragraph 7
> ```
> lients the value of 'n' is used to defines the value of s=5 x n. The 'flexe-
>                                    ^^^^^^^
> ```
> The verb after "to" should be in the base form.
> 
> #### Section 4.4, paragraph 12
> ```
> ompute the number of TS required to setup an ODUflex LSP, according to the
> ru
>                                     ^^^^^
> ```
> The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.
> 
> #### Section 4.4, paragraph 12
> ```
> ompute the number of TS required to setup an ODUflex LSP along the
> underlay p
>                                     ^^^^^
> ```
> The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one.
> 
> ## Notes
> 
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can
> use the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].
> 
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
> [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
> 
> 
>