Re: [CCAMP] R: 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-info-model (editorial)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Daniele,
	Thank you the changes look good!

Lou

On 6/27/2013 4:46 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
> all comments have been addressed, just some minor comments:
> 
> 1. TS granularity and 1.25/2.5Gbps aligned with other IDs
> 2. Lines 452-457 dropped as issue already explained in lines 401-409.
> 
> 
> BR
> Daniele & Sergio
> 
> ________________________________________
> Da: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] per conto di Lou Berger [[e-mail]]
> Inviato: venerdì 14 giugno 2013 22.04
> A: CCAMP; [e-mail]
> Oggetto: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-info-model (editorial)
> 
> Hi,
>         The following are comments as part of my LC review of
> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-08.  Note that I'm the document
> shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more information.
> 
> Please see
> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-08.txt
> for line numbers used in this message.
> 
> The draft needs to be nit free before being passed to the IESG. The
> following nits show in the above URL:
> 
>   Checking references for intended status: Informational
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC3630' is defined on line 831, but no explicit
>      reference was found in the text
> 
>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC5250' is defined on line 853, but no explicit
>      reference was found in the text
> 
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of
>      draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-04
> 
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of
>      draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-11
> 
>   == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of
>      draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-05
> 
> I also have the following editorial comments:
> 
> - From my comments on the framework document: this and the other g709v3
> documents should be consistent in usage of "TS granularity" versus
> "TSG".  Sometimes one is used rather than the other, sometimes both are
> used in the same document (as is the case in this document).  Please
> pick either one and update the four documents to be consistent.
> 
> - Another and related comment is please define and use a consistent
> plural form of "TS".  You initially define "TSs" to expand to "Time
> Slots", but then use "TS" as the plural form in many (but not all
> cases).  I personally think "TSs" in all plural cases makes the most sense.
> 
> - Also same comment for TSGs.
> 
> - please be consistent in usage of "Gbps".  Some inconsistent examples:
>  "1.25/2.5", "1.25Gbps", "1.25 GBps" and "1.25 Gbps".  (I personally
>  prefer the final form, but any common form is fine.)
> 
> Line 24:
>  s/methods/protocols
> 
> Lines 88-97: Section 1
>   This section is a bit odd in what it says and doesn't say.  How about
>   something along the following as a replacement:
> 
>   GMPLS routing and signaling, as defined by [RFC4203], [RFC3473] and
>   [RFC4328],  provides the mechanisms for basic GMPLS control of OTN
>   networks based on the 2001 revision of the G.709 specification.
>   The 2012 revision of the G.709 specification, [G709-2012], includes
>   new OTN features which are not supported by GMPLS.
> 
>   This document provides an evaluation of exiting GMPLS signaling and
>   routing protocols against G.709 [G.709-2012] requirements. Background
>   information and a framework for the GMPLS protocol extensions need to
>   support [G.709-2012] is provided in [OTN-FWK].  Specific routing and
>   signaling extensions are defined in [OTN-OSPF] and [OTN-RSVP].
> 
> Line 214:
>   s/2,5/2.5
> 
> Line 257:
>   Do you perhaps mean "This distinction" rather than "The
>   discrimination"?
> 
> Line 292:
>   s/r[/[
> 
> Line 300:
>   AUTOpayloadtype needs a reference
> 
> Line 320:
>   s/TS size/TSG
> 
> Line 322/3:
>   I think the 1st sentence cane be dropped (as it really just says
>   "On the other side the client TSG is the TSG that is exported towards
>   the client layer.")
> 
> Line 412:
>   s/like/such as
> 
> Line 416
>  s/his/its
> 
> Lines 452-457:
>  This paragraph is incomprehensible.  I tried to come up with
>  suggested, but failed as I'm not sure what is being made.
> 
> Line 461:
>  A guess:
>  s/so to have a more precise choice capability./to enable precise path
> selection
> 
> Line 464:
>  s/allowed/possible
> 
> Section 17.
> The choice of which documents are informative and which are normative
> seems a bit random.  I'm not too sure what a normative reference really
> means in this type of informational document in any case, but clearly
> the itu data plane documents should be normative if any references are
> identified as such.
> 
> That's it,
> Lou
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
>