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

"Adrian Farrel" <> Tue, 19 January 2016 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 813F41B339E for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:46:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WOKeV1ooYCE7 for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36A481B339A for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:46:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0JHkMAa001826; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:46:22 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0JHkGRL001807 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:46:17 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Daniele Ceccarelli'" <>, "'CCAMP'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:46:14 -0000
Message-ID: <01bf01d152e1$4bb9ebd0$e32dc370$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01C0_01D152E1.4D57BD50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIY0oApDZeHSRfZ63P7HMKZDMQFhp50Fq/w
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--22.893-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--22.893-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +XkuFvcrUd1bJCKOm3VRCaj5v7I4/SgY4Tno5sC0gjyJQj7QMsmn+WGS othhp5/fKC6zcKg/n0BWjqaf7FeZ1cBZPOJYZoM8VOFdaTLzUEeJtvq2ZmkpNxpZ231hAWun4sZ l7t7wI3+wQEC6hpSor8AmcZEx8XHJIfZjRfGTydiCsBeCv8CM/dHfJDwbkrHtkML1ALcKgRU6/P zq3sn9AN1fdEa3sz16syNb+yeIRAruHZGuwo6K7QE0HxrX9vb8OPqq7B3zhTzCtNEx/zWwo/umy OC/eNMcEnerDpp3+WPDr0AjBcmfRr4kZYg1dp8sYsz9F4FLBTDeQ0ny4xLfM3Z6DyfYMrWaCSq2 65sGiiK8oJG1hN/n+Pph0S97szoioWI+j+UNYkvJYIv7y0tu9gqEOaaKoFK3N43pcSngXHCqEjH R8FX3BY7RqcXOqZzf+/7/+WpTWHrs8rI+Arq54Qzvg1/q1MH24S1vp7ipI5aOXoOFCeTkvbEnMi RNQbMZWr/D5CnnmmT9zT4slMys3f2xX1OVrWqLVxt8iPZNr2yALjqnIlNKdNXjKfop/WvT3wqC9 Qsu3hf9+rKlRf1WaEtzk37SzX4NlPV6Vaqi4bDxxaAXDrCns4j7J3jzONjdJa6rGJR4RfowuiDz T/FFiVHi+vC6FxL8BU4uU+5y12q2InV6AaP6lZUhT38IzfaR7KBBZ2QBUyxPifNxprH2cuulrrv UsCg/hxaO3bw3PjDjrayXo0o3MIfsPVs/8Vw6EfKzCAntKpA6JpZ8BnIjEheWHY3LKnzHtF3RbB lJV000nIDKoCZxv3uTVkeYosXtveEm5pElaXSbKItl61J/yZUdXE/WGn0FfeZdJ1Xsorjr4Ukqz 3sOOSAHAopEd76vJyF+IhP3mktZzcMpwPX6iFoJu3p15uIwG7g8pP/uLhhRWUb7B+hKFw==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:46:30 -0000

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 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.
From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 19 January 2016 10:47
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
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:
Please note that no IPR was disclosed against this draft.
If anyone is willing to be the shepherd of the document, please volunteer.
Daniele & Fatai