Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 16 January 2015 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 EB05C1B2B89 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:36:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FRT_SLUT=2.522, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
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 QCl3x105BEOU for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:35:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A18BE1B2B88 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:35:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0GKZpnm018887; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:35:51 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (80-121-133-160.adsl.highway.telekom.at [80.121.133.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0GKZnrv018881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:35:50 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Leeyoung'" <leeyoung@huawei.com>, <draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org>
References: <00dd01d026c8$c3bd9280$4b38b780$@olddog.co.uk> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C71EBC@dfweml706-chm>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C71EBC@dfweml706-chm>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:35:50 -0000
Message-ID: <061c01d031cc$04913920$0db3ab60$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGuBc8fgeeljdJ0ZqOUd7m3it/ADQMMa/K0nO8nu3A=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21258.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.827-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--16.827-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: IeZYkn8zfFqnykMun0J1wvHkpkyUphL9Ud7Bjfo+5jQ5CCUkHUNu7l8P CCxSDY8vxBVPBDt9NWDtztXOOYV+4FBcD+fUZsB3p9ciXoJ/pWvNXgP7liZ5IpnNlSgGlfGpkdv IxNucy7+/7P8Kn+XkCX1KuvpUktmcNGfbF3CuxektMfCdg6KRDbQtUQGcjvHVIFBEE5CFomKSo7 YBtVK4/LrpeJrM1CK5OXh+vcntO3Bg0s9CJc8XvB3EEAbn+GRbnbR1KGab5Xm7+NPPxj+R6sXyP yHR36DVS1ayce3yAb6caX6Dvv+qh064sLvrq1LKdXz3l78F3Yk6En2bnefhoFfXgfL55invOgzl DZRw74sfhcUQijhd/wbqZM3zDkF0vycUQR1kwKYgKw/iul4Zx/cSIoniEyWosp5O052MzLryb35 SZdaBrJM0aoaSyIzHwwsK8ezn183au9iF5mAFeylrosmS0SOAMZm0+sEE9mslP1vFxquW9hnFeU hjgGQW+PU3j/oc0qUPs83S68xkMDcDLA95do+zhsE+u3nnCfDJ5SXtoJPLyI0F/H1BKHLgfYU2C f7Gf9lgHXrd7zy3WPCmupLh2jJ53MzeZlPGORdUJ1Ud7T8U/hNwWv2dBrmkH1bhq4z+yfSVP+jF +CZwUSBvW/mLOyUJsJZHwROosuK0TGHcoEhE3jDfgfM3Zc/RhQaFqMRElgkcXmBZ3mI5SQDDWSS ylqoGWkp65qH3viM5pYX88gSRnwvuBkbttOjik3ewifG2MNPGdQx1K0CtmTnKpbGL4ChVKSyMl4 Bp7a5TKmVbi8YBkjflP41njKHUGJBzk6LE3bOeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCpvI8UZOf47gc4WL5J jd88I2j49Ftap9EOwBXM346/+zb82p5LoMxQYuPT1OGWzOyPqsSflAyF97P28hvfc+BmfDQtSx7 RCad
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Yppwr6Rn0TU5w_-8-7c5o4EjQFo>
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:36:02 -0000

This is much clearer. Thanks!
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leeyoung [mailto:leeyoung@huawei.com]
> Sent: 15 January 2015 20:06
> To: Leeyoung; adrian@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-
> encode.all@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> There was one question I left unanswered in the previous email. Here's my
> comment. You said:
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 3.3
> 
>    Where Action = 0 denotes a list of 16 bit integers and Action = 1
>    denotes a bit map. In both cases the elements of the RB Set field
>    are in a one-to-one correspondence with the values in the usage RB
>    usage state area.
> 
> This is not clear. I think the Action field is explaining how the
> RB Usage State field is encoded.
> - Not sure why you call it "Action"
> - Would be good if you could make it clear that "16 bit integers"
>   or "bit map" apply to the RB Usage State field.
> 
> But...
> 
>    RB#i State (16 bits, unsigned integer): indicates Resource Block #i
>    is in use or available.
> 
> - You might say what value of the 16 bit unsigned integer indicates in
>   use and what value indicates available.
> - You should explain to me why a list of 16 bit integers to encode a
>   set of Booleans is in anyway efficient or appropriate.
> 
> It is *really* hard to parse from this section that the state applies
> to the whole RB when Action is 0, but applies to the elements of the RBs
> when Action is 1. At least, that is what I think I parsed from the text
> although I also found text in the section that convinced me you meant
> something else.
> 
> In short, this section is not clear!
> 
> [YOUNG]  How about:
> 
> OLD: RB#i State (16 bits, unsigned integer): indicates Resource Block #i
>    is in use or available.
> NEW: RB#i State (16 bits, unsigned integer): indicates the number of resources
> available in Resource Block #i.
> 
> Action = 1 covers the case where each resource block only contains a single
> element.
> Action = 0 covers the case where there are multiple elements for each resource
> block.
> 
> Hope this helps. Thanks.
> 
> Young
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leeyoung
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 5:20 PM
> To: 'adrian@olddog.co.uk'.uk'; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> My comment for general vs. WSON-specific issue is that
> the design philosophy of general encoding was to generalize a common element
> that can be applied
> to different technologies. For instance, connectivity matrix definitely can be
> applied to WSON, OTN and other
> Switching technology as one encoding can fit to all. You seemed to desire a
> sharing of the same encoding to describe
> different entities where possible. This is fine for label vs. wavelength as
there is
> one-to-one mapping for this.
> However, Resource Block encoding cannot properly share with the connectivity
> matrix encoding with two reasons:
> 
> 1. They refer to different elements in the node.
> 2. They require different sets of fields with different number of fields.
> 
> Please also see my comment in-line for details.
> 
> Thanks,
> Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 2:15 PM
> To: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I've now done my AD review of this document. I am rather regretting
> starting the IETF last call for draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-
> encode on which this document depends because it seems that this
> document introduces WSON-specific encodings (all of those before
> Section 4) that should/could have been made generic. In fact, I
> thought the point of the general encodings document was to produce
> protocol objects that could be used by technology-specific documents
> like this one.
> 
> If you can respond to my comments below, we can work out whether the
> general encodings document needs to be brought back for more work.
> 
> Thanks for your efforts with this.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> ===========
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    while other parts are fairly specific to WSONs.
> 
> They are either specific or they are not. I think you need
> s/fairly specific/specific/
> 
> [YOUNG] YES.
> 
> ---
> 
> Shouldn't the Introduction include a discussion of and reference to
> [Gen-encode]?
> 
> [YOUNG] A good point. Will add this.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> The Introduction has
> 
> 
>    This document provides efficient encodings
> 
> and
> 
>    Note that since these encodings are relatively efficient
> 
> Which are they? And relative to what?
> 
> [YOUNG] will remove 'relatively'.
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 1.1 has
> 
>    Refer to Section 5 of [Gen-Encode] for the terminology of Resources,
>    Resources Blocks, and Resource Pool.
> 
> I think you mean [RWA-Info]. That would also make [RWA-Info] a normative
> reference which seems correct anyway.
> 
> [YOUNG] Yes. Will change.
> ---
> 
> Section 1.1 makes RFC 6163 a normative reference.
> 
> [YOUNG] Yes. Will correct.
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 2.1 seems somewhere between a copy of and a modification of
> the Link Set Field in 2.3 of [Gen-Encode].
> 
> Some clarification would be useful. If this is different, why is it not
> using one of the generic encodings applied in a specific way? If it is
> the same, you should probably just reference the encoding in
> [Gen-Encode] and describe here how the fields are used, but if you
> insist in re-drawing the figure it should be aligned with the figure in
> [Gen-Encode].
> 
> [YOUNG] not quite. Link Set and Label Set are two different things with
different
> fields.
> Link Set has directionality and identifier format while Label Set does not
have
> these fields but has connectivity field.
> Not sure how we can point to each other.
> ---
> 
> Section 2.1
> 
>    The RB identifier represents the ID of the resource block which is a
>    32 bit integer.
> 
> You might note that the scope of the RB identifier is local to the node
> on which it is applied although that node may choose to use a globally
> known encoding such as from RFC 6205.
> 
> I assume that flexi-grid is out of scope for WSON. If it is not, then
> you need to think further about your 32 bit identifiers.
> 
> [YOUNG] Flex-grid is out of scope here. In addition, RB identifier is a
resource
> block ID
> Which is different from wavelength identifier. I am sure how a globally known
> encoding for
> Wavelength id can be used for RB identifier. They seemed to refer two
different
> entities.
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 3.1
> 
> Why isn't the Resource Accessibility Field expressed in terms of the
> use of a generic Connectivity Matrix Field from section 2.1 of
> [Gen-Encode]? I thought the whole point of [Gen-Encode] was to derive
> application agnostic encodings that could be used without modification
> (but with applicability notes) by specific technologies.
> 
> [YOUNG] Not quite. Connectivity Matrix encoding cannot be used for Resource
> Accessibility Field as the latter
> has additional entity (namely, RB set field) to describe. We generalized a
single-
> stage connectivity matrix in [Gen-Encode] that can
> be applicable to any switching technology. Here in WSON, we have a need to
> model RB constraints (for the pool of Wavelength Converters)
> from/to input/output link sets. Putting two different entities into one coding
was
> not the choice of the authors.
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 3.2
> 
> I looked for the equivalent of the Resource Wavelength Constraints
> Field in [Gen-Encode]. I understand that Input Wavelength Constraints
> Field and Output Wavelength Constraints Field are encoded using the
> generic Label Set of  [Gen-Encode], but I thought that the whole concept
> of Resource Constraints would be generic.
> 
> [YOUNG] Again, I think the design of generalization is not intended to
> share the same encoding to describe two different entities. Besides, I do
> not see the need to generalize encoding of an entity that has no particular
> use in other technologies than WSON.
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 3.3
> 
> As with the previous section I don't see anything that is WSON-specific
> in the concept of the 3.3. Resource Block Pool State (RBPoolState) Field
> and I wondered why [Gen-Encode] doesn't have anything to cover this.
> 
> [YOUNG] RB is wavelength converters, which is a unique WSON element.
> ---
> 
> Section 3.3
> 
>    Where Action = 0 denotes a list of 16 bit integers and Action = 1
>    denotes a bit map. In both cases the elements of the RB Set field
>    are in a one-to-one correspondence with the values in the usage RB
>    usage state area.
> 
> This is not clear. I think the Action field is explaining how the
> RB Usage State field is encoded.
> - Not sure why you call it "Action"
> - Would be good if you could make it clear that "16 bit integers"
>   or "bit map" apply to the RB Usage State field.
> 
> But...
> 
>    RB#i State (16 bits, unsigned integer): indicates Resource Block #i
>    is in use or available.
> 
> - You might say what value of the 16 bit unsigned integer indicates in
>   use and what value indicates available.
> - You should explain to me why a list of 16 bit integers to encode a
>   set of Booleans is in anyway efficient or appropriate.
> 
> It is *really* hard to parse from this section that the state applies
> to the whole RB when Action is 0, but applies to the elements of the RBs
> when Action is 1. At least, that is what I think I parsed from the text
> although I also found text in the section that convinced me you meant
> something else.
> 
> In short, this section is not clear!
> 
> [YOUNG] Indeed it is not clear. For this, let me get back to you shortly.
> 
> ---
> 
> Why don't Sections 3.4 and 4 have a B-bit like that in 3.2?
> 
> [YOUNG] I think the reason for B bit is not included in Section 3.4 is the
context
> where it won't be very useful (even if we have a B bit) as input wavelengths
> available will hardly match with output wavelength available in most cases.
> Compared to this, wavelength constraints can more often be same for input and
> output.
> 
> ---
> 
> Sections 3.4 and 4 should list the allowed settings of I and O
> (presumably: 01, 10, 11). Cf. Section 3.2.
> 
> [YOUNG] OK. How adding:
> 
> Currently the only valid combinations of (I,O) are (0,1), (1,0), or (1,1).
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 4
> 
> How do I know the length of the ResourceBlockInfo field? I need to know
> this to decide whether to try to parse the next bytes as another
> Optional subfield. I *do* when I reach the end of one Optional subfield,
> but I don't know whether another follows.
> 
> Possibly you intend the object that includes a ResourceBlockInfo field
> to provide the length information, but other fields defined in this
> document do include lengths or enough information to deduce the lengths.
> 
> [YOUNG] Yes, you're right. It is not completely consistent. How about the
> following
> Encoding:
> 
>   	 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
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |I|O|  Reserved                 |        Length                 |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                          RB Set Field                         |
>       :                                                               :
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                        Optional subfield 1                    |
>       :                              ...                              :
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       :                               :                               :
>       :                               :                               :
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                        Optional subfield N                    |
>       :                                                               :
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> Length: 16 bits
> 
>    The total length of this field in bytes.
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 4.1
> 
>    The following I and E combination are defined:
> 
> s/E/O/
> 
> [YOUNG] Agree. Thanks.
> ---
> 
> Section 4.1
> 
>            1: [ITU-G.698.1] application code.
> 
>            2: [ITU-G.698.2] application code.
> 
>            3: [ITU-G.959.1] application code.
> 
>            4: [ITU-G.695] application code.
> 
> You should use the same format as in the references section. E.g.,
> [G.959.1].
> 
> Do you mean 698 or 694? You have references for 694.1 and 694.2, but
> not 698.1 or 698.2. But 694.1 does not seem to include any "application
> codes" - they're in 698.1 and 698.2.
> 
> Each of the subsections 4.1.1-4.1.4 should include a citations.
> 
> [YOUNG] Yes, for the reference format. The right references are 698.1 and
698.2
> --- will correct with the right references. Citations will be added in each of
the
> subsections.
> ---
> 
> Section 4.1
> How do I interpret a Vendor-Specific Application Code? Is there an OUI
> I'm missing?
> 
> [YOUNG] Not sure if I understood this question. What is "OUI"?
> 
> ---
> 
> I discussed sections 4.1.1-4.1.4 with the authors and the WG chairs and
> have asked the chairs to send a liaison to ITU-T Q6/15 asking them to
> cast an eye over the text of these sections.
> 
> [YOUNG] Thanks. It is a good idea to send a liaison to Q6/15.
> 
> ---
> 
> 4.1.1
> 
>    Where (values between parenthesis refer to ITU defined values as
>    reported above):
> 
> Please remove the parentheses from this sentence.
> 
> [YOUNG] OK.
> ---
> 
> 4.1.1 and 4.1.2
> 
>       An Optional F can be added indicating a FEC Encoding.
> 
>       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
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |B|  D  |S|   c   |   W   |   y   |   t   |   z   |  v  |   F   |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>       |                           reserved                            |
>       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>          F (suffix): = 0 reserved, = 1 Fec Encoding
> 
>       Values not mentioned here are not allowed in this application
>    code
> 
> If F is optional but only one value is allowed (viz. 1) how do I opt to
> not indicate a FEC Encoding?
> 
> [YOUNG] I guess 0 will do it.
> 
> ---
> 
> 4.1.1 and 4.1.2
> 
> Your definition of parameter c makes RFC 6205 a normative reference.
>
.
> I think you could usefully point with more precision to Figure 2 in
> Section 3.2 of RFC 6205.
> 
> However, I wonder whether you want to allow new values that may be added
> to the IANA registry created by Section 5.2 of RFC 6205
> 
> [YOUNG] OK. Will change RFC 6205 as a normative reference and point with more
> precision to Fig. 2 in Section 3.2 of RFC 6205. Since we are not adding values
to the
> channel spacing here, I am not sure if it is appropriate to discuss this in
this
> document.
> ---
> 
> 4.1.3 and 4.1.4
> 
> 
>          n: maximum number of channels (10 bits, up to 1024 channels)
> 
> Hmmm, 2^10 is 1024, but 10 bits can only encode 1023 unless you say that
> n=0 is not valid and so n is actually max channels minus one.
> 
> [YOUNG] I would change: 1024 -> 1023.
> ---
> 
> 4.4
> 
>    The processing capability list field is then given by:
> 
>       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
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |            Reserved           |        Processing Cap ID      |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |   Possible additional capability parameters depending upon    |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      :   the processing ID                                           :
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
>    When the processing Cap ID is "regeneration capability", the
> 
> I don't believe you have told me how to encode "regeneration
> capability" into the Processing Cap ID field. Possibly you mean that the
> numbered list above is intended to define the settings of this field.
> 
> If so then:
> - say so
> - explain that "Fault and performance monitoring" and "Vendor Specific
>   capability" have no additional capability parameters
> - probably remove the note about "Fault and performance monitoring" and
>   "vendor specific capability" because if it isn't here it is, of
>   course, for future study.
> 
> [YOUNG] Yes, how about adding right after the encoding and before, "when ..."
> the following:
> 
>    The processing capability ID field defines the following processing
capabilities:
> 
>      0: Reserved
> 
>      1: Regeneration capability
> 
>      2: Fault and performance monitoring
> 
>      3: Vendor Specific capability
> 
> [YOUNG] OK, will remove the note on the further study and add:
> 
> "Fault and performance monitoring" and "Vendor Specific
>   capability" have no additional capability parameters.
> 
> ---
> 
> 4.4
> 
>    Note that when the capability of regenerator is indicated to be
>    Selective Regeneration Pools, regeneration pool properties such as
>    input and output restrictions and availability need to be specified.
>    The code point for this is subject to further study.
> 
> I think you mean to replace that final line with...
> 
>    These properties will be encoded in the capabilities field starting
>    with the bits marked Reserved in the figure.  An additional
>    specification describing the encoding of these parameters is required
>    before the value C=2 can be used.
> 
> [YOUNG] Thanks. Agree.
> 
> ---
> 
> Section 6
> 
> In Section 6 and 6.1 you appear to be creating a new top-level registry
> called "GMPLS Routing Parameters for WSON" with a sub-registry called
> "Types for subfields of WSON Resource Block Information".
> 
> It's a shame to create a whole new top-level registry. I suppose you
> think that this information will only ever be used in routing and
> never in signaling. Probably right, in which case you are good to go,
> although your text could be clearer.
> 
> [YOUNG] Unfortunately it is only intended for Routing. Will add this is the
case in
> the text.
> 
> ---
> 
> Section A.3 is using some form of BNF to represent information.
> 
> This is probably RBNF from RFC 5511. Anyway, you need to give a
> reference so people can read it.
> 
> It would be nice to lay the BNF out on the page in a more readable way.
> 
> [YOUNG] OK, will reference and do some cosmetic surgery on this.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp