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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 28 June 2013 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB92E21F9B9F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WJScfNlY9GgQ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E86D21F9B9D for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 24439 invoked by uid 0); 28 Jun 2013 16:59:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy6.bluehost.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 2013 16:59:39 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=kFaO0nTPrnW/ZF5SEI58F8Mq+BoDHK+XWgB/fPM2toQ=; b=gNDzuWT3PG2B/wgCrCC+WWhEN8QN+2j57bh21Bhg1PzlN8n8O/aQrJyUrCHRgdzLmw+MIXKdX+VPJ/n3vJ/nCQU4tCWQ6QgTIORl+sLy5RSqooxBIWxOEq2ekDxo68AR;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:38980 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Usc1K-0001wa-Qx; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:59:39 -0600
Message-ID: <51CDC0FE.4000706@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:59:42 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
References: <51A8CB9D.40009@labn.net>, <51BB7741.5060302@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480FA0A2@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480FA0A2@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] R: 2nd WG Last Call comments on g709-info-model (editorial)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:00:14 -0000

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: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] per conto di Lou Berger [lberger@labn.net]
> Inviato: venerdì 14 giugno 2013 22.04
> A: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org
> 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
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
>