Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04

[Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,



Please see in-line below.



A new version will be issued after all open issues are resolved.











Best Regards



Fatai





-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:12 PM
To: Fatai Zhang
Cc: CCAMP; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 答复: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04



Fatai/Authors,

         Thank you for the mail, and sorry about my delayed response.  BTW

please feel free to continue discussing the remaining open issues on the

list and reaching closure on the list (on specific text/resolutions)

prior to publishing the next rev.



Please see below for inline responses.



On 12/7/2012 4:53 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:

> Hi Lou,

>

> Please see how the LC comments addressed below.

>

>

>

>

>

> Best Regards

>

> Fatai

>

>

> -----邮件原件-----

> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Lou Berger

> 发送时间: 2012年10月22日 10:01

> 收件人: CCAMP; [e-mail]

> 主题: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04

>

> Authors,

>     I have the following LC comments:

>

> General comments:

>

> - This document also needs some addition work on conformance language.

> I'll try to point out cases in the detailed comments below.

>

> [Fatai] OK. Checked and refined based on your detailed comments.

>



I think this rev is an improvement, but there's still more work needed.

I have made some specific comments/suggestions below.



> - Section 5 essentially defines a new set of traffic parameters.  Given

> the changes, why not ask for a new C-TYPE and not worry about [RFC4328]

> compatibility/description?

>

> [Fatai] Accepted to have a new C-TYPE and updated the text accordingly.

>



Okay.



> Detailed editorial and technical comments:

>

> - Please verify that abbreviations are defined before being used .

> There are a number of these.

>

> [Fatai] Went through and updated.



thanks.



>

> - Please use a consistent decimal representation (sometimes commas are

> used other times periods)

>

> [Fatai] OK. Commas are used.



great, although a quick skim finds:

s/1,301.683.217/1,301,683.217







>

> - the references [G709-v1] and [G709-v3] each actually refer to multiple

> documents, each documented needs to have it's own (correct) reference,

> i.g., [G709-v1] and [G709-v1a1]. The document text will need to be

> revisited to ensure the proper reference is made.

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and used the same approach for framework draft.



great





> -

> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04.txt

> shows there are unresolved nits that need to resolved .



http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-05.txt

still shows a warning, notably:



     (Using the creation date from RFC4328, updated by this document, for

     RFC5378 checks: 2005-01-17)



  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may

     have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you

     have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant

     the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore

     this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.

     (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)


[Fatai] Will update “Copyright Notice” section.



> I'm using line

> numbers from this url in my subsequent comments.

>

[...]



> - Section 3.  Perhaps combine with section 1.

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and refined.

>



I don't see where this suggestion was followed, but that's okay, it was

just a suggestion.


[Fatai] OK.



[...]

> - Section 5: assuming this is now a new c-type need text for that, as

> well as to formally defined the fields/field sizes.

>

> [Fatai] Accepted to have a new C-TYPE and updated the text accordingly.



Formal field definitions are missing and need to be added.


[Fatai] The format is the same as RFC4328. Did you mean that it needs “Length”, “Class-Num” and “C-Type”? If yes, I will add them. If you mean that it needs text to define all the fields, I think the text is already there (then this comment may be related to your other comments below).



Also the draft says:



   Note that the error process on the traffic parameters MUST follow the

   rules defined in Section 6 of [RFC4328].



Given the different fields, shouldn't any OTN-TDM related traffic parameter processing now be defined in this document?



[Fatai] I just wanted to avoid the overlapped text (almost the same text as RFC4328). Will accept your suggestion to expand the text as follows:


There is no Adspec associated with the OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC. Either the Adspec is omitted or an Int-serv Adspec with the Default General Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment is used, see [RFC2210].
For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated.
Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself, and the interfaces on which the LSP will be established, can support the requested Signal Type, NVC, Tolerance and Bit_Rate values. If the requested value(s) cannot be supported, the receiver node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]).

In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the node MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]).



>

[...]

>

> - Lines 320-336,338-346 are essentially repeated in sections 5.1 and

> 5.2, why not move this text into their respective sections?

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and refined the text.





I don't see where this suggestion was followed. For example:



287  In case of ODUflex(CBR), the Bit_Rate and Tolerance fields MUST be

288  used together to represent the actual bandwidth of ODUflex, where:



and



323  In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate and Tolerance in

324  the ODUflex traffic parameters MUST be used to determine the total

325 number of tributary slots N in the HO ODUk link to be reserved. Here:



[Fatai] Sorry I should not say “Accepted and refined the text.” last time. They are not repeated. here, the text just describes the meaning of the corresponding fields (as we always do), so the above text should be there irrespectively. Section 5.1 & section 5.2 describe “how” with more detail information including formulation, Table information and example.



>

> - lines 445-468: Why not just carry "n" directly?

>

> [Fatai] to make it consistent with ODUflex(CBR).



Given that the recent decision to have an OTN-TDM specific set of

traffic parameters, doesn't it now make sense to just carry N directly?



[Fatai] No. “N” cannot be used for ODUflex(CBR) case. It is better to have consistent format and the same meaning of one field for both ODUflex(CBR) and GFP. This is why we have section 5.1 &5.2 to describe the complex stuff.



[...]



>

> - Line 576: "Padded bits" seems off, how about "Pad bits" or "Padding",



Again, how about "Pad bits" or "Padding"?



[Fatai] OK. Should use “Pad bits” instead of “Padding bits”



> also bits aren't represented in label format (line 494)., also "behind"

> --> "after"

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated.

>



[...]



>

> - Lines 658-660.  The normative language in 4328 isn't actually

> presented in the section titled "label distribution procedures" (or

> "rules" as section 4.2 is actually titled), so this paragraph doesn't

> make sense.  I suggest either (a) defining the full set of required

> procedures in this document, or (b) referring to the "required

> processing defined in [RFC4328]" and other rfcs as appropriate.

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated accordingly.

>

> - Lines 662-667: what about generating upstream, suggested, label set,

> etc.  Perhaps you should rephrase much into more general rules.

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated accordingly.

>



I think section 6.2 still needs a bit of work.



So are there procedures that an ingress must follow?

For example:

- Setting of fields in the label request object, such as the OTN-TDM

Switching Type defined in [OTN-OSPF].



What about the egress, are there any special procedures?



The final three paragraphs of the section introduce upstream behaviors

*after* you've described the downstream behavior without specifics of

the new upstream behavior. As a general rule and in this case in

particular, I really think it would be better to cover procedures in the

following order

- Ingress

- Generic upstream

- Generic downstream

- Egress



Also, generic statements should not use conformance language,

particularly when more detailed rules/procedures, which include such

language, follow.



If you'd like we can discuss/review details on the list once you have a

proposed revision. (I see a bunch of more minor comments on this

section, but don't think it makes sense to focus on these until the more

major comments are addressed.)



[Fatai] Will refine the text based on your suggestion. Do I need to copy so much text here for review?





[...]

>

> - Lines 682-685: Who is this learning/identification accomplished?

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated.

>

> - Lines 703-704: If this is the normative section defining requirement

> processing, the procedures need to be spelled out for all required cases.

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated accordingly.

>

> - Lines 706-707: I think this needs to be rephrased to be clear what

> behavior is required for a node to be conformant with this sentence.

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and refined accordingly.

>

> - Lines 711-714: why "SHOULD" vs "MUST"?

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated.

>



I'll defer responses to the discussion on prior comment.



> - Line 712: By "integrity of the label" do you mean "if the label is

> acceptable"?

>

> [Fatai] Yes, and updated.

>

>

> - Line 725: By "reserved resource" do you mean "indicated resource"?

>

> [Fatai] Yes, and updated.

>

> - Line 726: Does "do not match" mean "inconsistent"?

>

> [Fatai] Yes, and updated.



WRT lines 624-627, I think you still need additional specificity

differentiate upstream/downstream required behavior. Perhaps something

along the lines of:



    When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an

    LABEL object with an OTN-TDM label, the node MUST verify that

    the label is acceptable. If the label is not acceptable, the

    node MUST generate a ResvErr message with a "Routing

    problem/Unacceptable label value" indication.  Per [RFC3473],

    the generated ResvErr message MAY include an

    ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object.  With the exception of label

    semantics, Downstream node processing a received ResvErr

    messages and of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not modified

    by this document.



    Similarly, when a downstream node receives a Path message

    containing an UPSTREAM_LABEL object with an OTN-TDM label,

    the node MUST verify that the label is acceptable. If the

    label is not acceptable, the node MUST generate a PathErr

    message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable label value"

    indication.  Per [RFC3473], the generated ResvErr message MAY

    include an ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object.  With the exception

    of label semantics, Downstream node processing received

    PathErr messages and of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not

    modified by this document.



    A received label SHALL be considered unacceptable when one of

    the following cases occurs:



    - The received label doesn't conform with local policy.



[Fatai] OK. Accept your proposed text.

    ...



>

> - Line 730, Drop "As".

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated.

>

> - Section 6.4: Missing conformance language.

>

> [Fatai] Went through and updated.



New line 660:   The procedures are similar to section 6 of [RFC6344].



Hereto,  If this is the normative section defining required processing,

the procedures need to be spelled out for all required cases or refer to

specific (and unmodified) procedures to follow in a reference document.

So either define the processing or say procures defined in <appropriate

reference> are followed.



[Fatai] OK, I think it is better to say “The procedures MUST follow Section 5 of [RFC6344].”



>

> - Lines 758-759: This reads like an informative statement, but includes

> conformance language.  How does a node conform?  I suggest rephrasing to

> be clear.

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated.

>



I think this section should be revised to ensure that the

responsibilities of each type of processing node (ingress, upstream,

downstream, egress) is clear.



I guess, we'll have a thread on this section too...



[Fatai] Will refine the text based on your suggestion.



[...]



>

> - Section 9, should also reference 4328 and cover delta in information

> and added risks.

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated.



We'll see if this is enough to keep the security reviewers happy...



>

> - Section 10: This section needs some work.  (I'm assuming your familiar

> with rfc5226).

>

> [Fatai] Accepted and updated.

>



Better, but you should at least refer to the existing registries, which already includes G-PIDs (see

http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xml)



> - Is it time to create a "Signal Type" registry?

>

> [Fatai] We are not sure, because no "Signal Types" have been registered in the existing RFCs (like RFC3473, RFC4328..).

>



I think including a request to establish such a registry in this

document would be useful.  Is anyone up to proposing the requisite text?



[Fatai] OK to register “Signal Type”.


   Value    Signal Type                           Reference
   -----    -----------                                ---------
   0        Not significant                      [this document]
   1        ODU1 (i.e., 2.5 Gbps)                 [this document]
   2        ODU2 (i.e., 10 Gbps)                  [this document]
   3        ODU3 (i.e., 40 Gbps)                  [this document]
   4        ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps)                 [this document]
   5        Reserved (for future use)              [this document]
   6        Optical Channel (Och) at 2.5 Gbps       [this document]
   7        OCh at 10 Gbps                      [this document]
   8        OCh at 40 Gbps                      [this document]
   9        OCh at 100 Gbps                     [this document]
   10       ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps)                [this document]
   11       ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200        [this document]
            and GE LAN)
   12~19    Reserved (for future use)             [this document]
   20       ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)      [this document]
   21       ODUflex(Generic Framing            [this document]
            Procedure-Framed (GFP-F)),
            resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)
   22       ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable        [this document]
            (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps)

      23~255   Reserved (for future use)             [this document]





Thanks,

Lou





> That's it on this document.

>

> Lou

> -