Re: [CCAMP] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability

[[e-mail]]

Dear Adrian & CCAMPers,

Thanks for Adrian's Shepherd work. One 09 version was just uploaded to address the comments. 
Which could be found at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability/

One interesting thing is when I used the conversion service (https://author-tools.ietf.org/) to convert the xml file to txt file some minutes ago, the date I could see at the front part of the draft is 10 May 2022. 
But when I submit the xml file to post this draft, the date that is showed in the draft on IETF website is 8 May 2022. I personally can't figure out why...

But anyway, it doesn't matter to me.

Thanks
Qilei



------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：王其磊 Wang Qilei
收件人：AdrianFarrel;[e-mail];
抄送人：'CCAMP';[e-mail];[e-mail];[e-mail];[e-mail];
日 期 ：2022年05月06日 09:00
主 题 ：Re:Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability
Thank you Adrian for the Shepherd work. All the comments are accepted. We will post the 09 version as soon as possible, as the draft is going to be expired soon.
Detailed reply could be found in-line.

Thanks
Qilei


发件人：AdrianFarrel
收件人：[e-mail];
抄送人：'CCAMP';
日 期 ：2022年05月06日 05:34
主 题 ：RE: Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability
Oh, and you can remove Section 5.
Qilei: well, we will remove this.

A
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Sent: 05 May 2022 22:23
To: '[e-mail]'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]>
Subject: Document shepherd review of
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability
Hi,
I have stepped in as document shepherd for this document. Here is my
Review based on -08.
While you work on these comments and post a new revision, I'll do the
shepherd write-up.
Thanks,
Adrian
===
Abstract
Please expand "LSP" in the Abstract.
Qilei: will expand "LSP".
---
1.
Please expand OTN, OTU, ODU, and LSP on first use.
s/Since the/Because/
Qilei: accepted.
---
2.
Not sure that using lettered bullets is necessary.
s/Detailed description/Detailed descriptions/
You should probably have a separate entry for TPN in this list.
It is probably not important, but I find the use of '5G' to be
unfortunately ambiguous given all the work of the 3GPP. Would it be
possible to use '5 Gbit/s' throughout the whole document?
Qilei: accepted.
for the lettered bullets, will replace them with " * ".
---
3.1
Is it clear what "FlexO" is? The term pops up as though the reader is
supposed to know it.
Qilei: will add some description about FlexO in the section 2.

---
In Figure 1 you have
+--------+           +--------+
|        +-----------+        |
| OTN    |-----------| OTN    |
| DXC    +-----------+ DXC    +
|        |           |        |
+--------+           +--------+
Is that '+' on the right-hand side intentional?
Qilei: well, will fix it.

---
3.4
'TS' is used in this section (and only in this section) without
expansion. What does it mean? I think you can...
OLD
As mentioned above, the OPUCn signal has 20*n 5G tributary slots.
NEW
As mentioned above, the OPUCn signal has 20*n 5G tributary slots
(TSs).
END
Qilei: accepted.
---
4.1
Section 3 of RFC7138 describes how to represent G.709 OTUk/ODUk with
TE-Links in GMPLS.  Similar to that, ODUCn links can also be
represented as TE-Links, which can be seen in the Figure 4.
I think that is "Figure 3"

Qilei: you are right. will fix it.---
4.2
'LO' and 'HO' are used without explanation
Qilei: will expand them.
---
4.2
An example is given in Figure 5 to illustrate the label format
Is that "Figure 4"?
Qilei: yes, you are right, will fix it.