Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling

"Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <giomarti@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 4FF741A0484 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:17:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, 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 XO6gcJdpGGZo for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD9D1A047E for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:17:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7800; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394025454; x=1395235054; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=jbu3TxNXqXJb/Ps6kjbaB4qQd+7NcF+OV2/1F+HVMYE=; b=Mq4lPItbddk30Z5IWxVIABYOr7M0N9nKNLJ4Q8cjpsRnnH/jVEqrzAON YPzA5PnBFCKzplWtowlyzLBCRGxtFCOj22yPlfIxC6xIzQLDBPE1CCcPj tvTC9/r8wtTrUygpXgtXph777U5Ph2Co8kERZ+XXYIAdsEYnZOCDs5F6I Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAE8jF1OtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagwY7V8ELgRYWdIIlAQEBAwEBAQFkBwsFCwIBCA4KLicLJQIEDgWHcQgNzXcXjgABAQoSMwcCgyKBFASYPYEykHmDLYFxOQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,592,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="308208206"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2014 13:17:34 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com [173.36.12.84]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s25DHYQe021683 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:17:34 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.171]) by xhc-aln-x10.cisco.com ([173.36.12.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 07:17:33 -0600
From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling
Thread-Index: AQHPOHVEhG+mKsKvx022cDpfrk1U+w==
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 13:17:33 +0000
Message-ID: <D14BD5F4-123D-49BF-A265-EF49388C7CCC@cisco.com>
References: <524AF9A9.3040006@labn.net> <5266E138.8080605@labn.net> <526FFE4F.30309@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <526FFE4F.30309@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.104.226]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <5A71A714819EA746BCAB5A37F0754259@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/XsEprm7-o-Na_-l2_buv40utRQI
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Mar 2014 13:17:41 -0000

Hi Lou,


On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:28, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:

> Authors,
> 	I have some comments on this document. Most are strictly
> editorial. Note that I'm the document shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more
> information.
> 
> - Please address my general comments on the WSON document set
> 
> - in document
>  s/Bi-Directional/Bidirectional

GM> ok

> 
> - Abstract
>  s/Such extensions are necessary/Such extensions are applicable
>  drop "bidirectional LSPs, and”
> 

GM> ok

> - Section 1
> 
>   These extensions build on previous work for the control of lambda
>   and G.709 based networks.
> 
>  Please add appropriate references.
> 
>  It seems to that it would be worth mentioning the rwa-info document
>  and the encoding document in this section.
> 
> - section 3.1
>  s/MUST/needs to
> 

GM> ok

> - Section 3.3
>  s/MAY/can
>  s/MAY/need to be
> 

GM> ok

> - Section 3.4
>  s/MAY/can
> 

GM> ok

> - section 3.5 title
>  s/Out of Scope/Optical Impairments
> 

GM> ok

> - Section 4.2:
>   To target a specific node, this section defines a WSON_Processing
>   object as part of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and follows procedures
>   defined in [RSVP-RO].
> 
>   The content of this object is defined in the subsequent sections.
>   (See Section 4.3 for <RBInformation> TLV and Section 4.4 for
>   <WavelengthSelection> TLV, respectively.)
> 
> Do you mean
> 
>   To target a specific node, this section defines a WSON_Processing
>   HOP Attribute TLV which is processed according to the procedures
>   defined in [RSVP-RO].
> 
>   The content of this TLV is defined in the subsequent sections.
>   (See Section 4.3 for <RBInformation> sub-TLV and Section 4.4 for
>   <WavelengthSelection> sub-TLV, respectively.)
> 
>  if yes, also need to s/WSON Processing object/WSON Processing TLV
>  in rest of document.
> 

GM> correct interpretation, ok

> - Section 4.2
>  You need to define the Length.  Perhaps. replace the whole definition:
> OLD
> 
>   The WSON Processing object encoding is defined as:
> 
>    0                   1                   2                   3
>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |            Type               |             Length            |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   |                                                               |
>   ~                            Value                              ~
>   |                                                               |
>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> NEW
>  The WSON Processing carries sub-TLVs of the same format as a HOP
>  Attributes TLV, as defined in [RSVP-RO].
> 

GM> ok

> - Section 4.3. "... PathErr SHALL be generated." Which code/value?
>  Are you sure? Generally malformed messages don't result in a PathErr.
>  What is an upstream node expected to do with the PathErr?
> 
>  How should other parsing errors be handled?
> 
>  What about allocation errors?
> 

GM> We do not expect specific errror specific error processing apart from what already defined by draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro. We remove the specific error generation.

> - Section 4.4
> 
>  I'm really confused by this sub-tlv.  Is it intended to be an end to
> end construct, information that is used/updated hop-by-hop, or used at
> specific hops only?  I suspect that the desire is for this to be
> communicated end to end and accessible at each hop.  If so, it looks
> like then intent is for this to be carried as a TLV in the
> LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object.  Is this correct?  If so the section needs to be
> updated accordingly.
> 

GM> yes correct, we updated the section as LSP_ATTRIBUTES

> - Section 5
> 
> I'm really not sure that this section adds anything beyond what is
> already stated in other documents/RFCs, and it doesn't match this
> documenting being a protocol specification.  I can see some informative
> value in the third paragraph.  I suggest moving just this paragraph to
> the end of section 4.3 and dropping the rest.
> 

GM> ok

> - Section 6
>  I think this section needs to be replaced.  Perhaps use the following
> which is based on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3
> 
>   This document is builds on the mechanisms defined in  [RFC3473],
>   and only differs in specific information communicated. As such,
>   this document introduces no new security considerations to the
>   existing GMPLS signaling protocols. See [RFC3473], for
>   details of the supported security measures. Additionally,
>   [RFC5920] provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and
>   protection mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane.
> 

GM> ok

> - Section 7
>  This section needs a bit of work  See
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-12#section-11
> for an example.  Contact me off list if you think need help with
> specific text.
> 

GM> updated the section we’ll send you an updated copy shortly for a quick review. 

Cheers
G

> That's it on this one,
> Lou
> 
> 
> On 10/22/2013 4:34 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>> 
>> All,
>> 	Given the recent draft submission deadline and only one comment being
>> received to date, we'd like to extend the WG more time for review.
>> 
>> These drafts represent significant work by the authors and WG, so please
>> review and let the WG know what you think (positive or negative)!
>> 
>> Please have all comments in by October 29.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Lou (and Deborah)
>> 
>> On 10/1/2013 12:34 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> This mail begins working group last call on the WSON documents.  As
>>> there are 6 documents in this set, the last call will be three weeks.
>>> The documents included in the last call are:
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-18
>>> (Informational, IPR Disclosed)
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-11
>>> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-21
>>> (Standards Track)
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-05
>>> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-12
>>> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
>>> 
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-06 (Standards
>>> Track) Also has one open issue that will need to be resolved as part of
>>> LC, see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/ticket/52.
>>> 
>>> This working group last call ends on October 22.  Comments should be
>>> sent to the CCAMP mailing list.  Please remember to include the
>>> technical basis for any comments.
>>> 
>>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is
>>> ready for publication", are welcome!
>>> 
>>> Please note that we're still missing some IPR statements.  Any
>>> forthcoming publication request will be delayed by late IPR
>>> statements/disclosures.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Lou (and Deborah)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>