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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 29 October 2013 18:27 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 69EAB11E825D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.349, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 KBHXIDTN+P74 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-ss-1226.bluehost.com (outbound-ss-1226.bluehost.com [74.220.217.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4422A21F9E3A for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4662 invoked by uid 0); 29 Oct 2013 18:27:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy13.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2013 18:27:26 -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:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=A4e7EcenDGl+9RWwjhds5oa8YuLvyMptvui1V0W+ytE=; b=Chyd1fl474HDOcRudTx7BbAyCYpFKc0Bh17OZT+GTlV0kuR+wcG9kV7kJJZGbutZ+pt3jelL35dU1+w85diq8XPyyiQD+5QncsQvaCchjMF3s0TRUByN9M4KcwsAZx05;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:52898 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1VbE0k-0005WY-8b; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:27:26 -0600
Message-ID: <526FFE06.20207@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:27:18 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode@tools.ietf.org>
References: <524AF9A9.3040006@labn.net> <5266E138.8080605@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <5266E138.8080605@labn.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
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: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:27:54 -0000

Authors,
	I have some comments on this document. Many 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

- section 1
   This document makes
   use of the Label Set Field encoding of [Gen-Encode] and refers to it
   as a Wavelength Set Field.
  Why?  Why not just refer to it as Label Set?  Perhaps you mean that a
  Wavelength Set Field is a Label Set Field that MUST carry a label as
  defined in RFC6205?  If so, this needs to be made explicit. (probably
  in a section other than the introduction.)

- section2/3 section alignment with rwa-info
  It's probably a good idea to align naming and ordering wherever
  possible.

- section 2
  1st two paragraphs.  Why does this section try to introduce concepts
  that are defined in 6163 and in [WSON-INFO]?  Is something missing
  from those documents?  If so, at least wson info should be fixed.  If
  not, these paragraphs should be replaced with simple
  terminology/concept references.

- Section 2, same comment WRT TLVs as made on general-constraint-
  encode: The text reads:
   This document defines the following sub-TLVs pertaining to resources
   within an optical node:

   All references to sub-TLVs should dropped, again see related comment
   in my may on general-constraint-encode.  This doesn't hold for
   sub-sub-TLVs, and I'll get to this below.

- Section 3.1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    | Connectivity  |
  Why is connectivity a byte here, but only a bit in section 2.1?
  Either it should be a bit here to, or section 2.1 should be a byte.
  Note, that this can be fixed in a compatible way by defining it here
  as:
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    |   Reserved  |C|


- Section 4.
  The definitions of sub-sub-TLVs are a bit underspecified.  Some
  specific questions to address:
  - Are there any sub-sub-TLV ordering requirements?
  - How are multiple sub-sub-TLVs of the same type to be handled?
  - What is the sub-sub-TLV header (TL format)?
  - Are there any alignment requirements?
  - What happens when a sub-sub-TLV is larger than 256 bytes?
    (There are already systems that advertise 192 wavelengths on a
    fiber and an application code takes 8 bytes, right? But
    of course this presents a problem when carried within an RSVP
    object too.)

  If you find you need more specifics, we can discuss / I can propose
  new text.  Feel free to discuss the details on or off list (your
  choice.)

- Section 4.1
  Title and 1st sentence don't agree on the element's name.

- Section 3.4, 4.1
  - Bits I & E are defined here, but I & O are used in parallel ways in
    Section 3.2. For consistency it should be I & O everywhere (to
    match input and output).

- Section 4.2.1
  s/[ITU-G.695.1]/[ITU-G.695]

- Section 4.2.2, 4.2.3
  Why do you use bit names that are different than the ITU-T
  definitions for p and s (rather than D and F)?

WRT Section 8:
-  [RFC3471] is an informative reference.
- [Gen-Encode] needs to be normative, this document reuses its definitions.
- I'm surprised  [WSON-Info] is informative (and not normative).  Do you
think this is correct?

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
> 
> 
> 
>