Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt

Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Mon, 02 September 2013 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
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 12C7411E81D1; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 02:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.966
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.633, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Lp3A4DF+dXnz; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 02:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A57011E8125; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 02:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AUY76901; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 09:26:39 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:26:03 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.38) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:26:11 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.152]) by SZXEMA406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 17:26:03 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: Tomonori TAKEDA <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOpURpDaQpK4moZEOR/PL1Q09//JmyLenw
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:26:01 +0000
Message-ID: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA602BB@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <201308300547.r7U5l5MQ014566@imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <201308300547.r7U5l5MQ014566@imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.72.159]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 09:26:55 -0000

Hi Tomonori,

Thanks for your comments.

I think the changes should be very minor per your comments, and I would defer to ADs/WG chairs to decide if we need update the draft before publication. 

See more for your points.

Point 1: Yes, this is specific to OTN and please see the [OTN-OSPF] draft for the priority information. 

Point 2: Yes, it refers to ODU multiplexing. The legacy OTN here includes [RFC4328] and Pre-[RFC4328] (but there is no IETF draft for Pre-[RFC4328]), and Pre-[RFC4328] could not support multiplexing hierarchy, so I think we can change the original text to "since multiplexing hierarchy may not be supported by the legacy OTN ".

Point 3: I think we can remove "Note that..." sentence because it is about solution specific, which has been described in solution drafts.

All nits should be accepted. 


Best Regards

Fatai


-----Original Message-----
From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tomonori TAKEDA
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:47 PM
To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt

Hello, 

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. 

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt  
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: 30 August 2013 
IETF LC End Date: 02 September 2013 
Intended Status: Informational 

o Summary: 
This document describes framework for GMPLS/PCE control of OTN and impacts on GMPLS/PCE protocols. Overview of OTN is mentioned, which is helpful to understand the document.

o Comments: 
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.
(I think these are mostly related to clarification questions.)

o Major Issues: 
No major issues found. 

o Minor Issues: 

1) In Section 5.3., it says the following requirement for GMPLS routing.
 -  Support different priorities for resource reservation

I think this is a valid requirement, but I do not think this is specific to OTN.
Does this imply the need for protocol extensions or just the usage of protocols?

2) Section 5.4., it says:

       Furthermore, since multiplexing hierarchy was not allowed 
       by the legacy OTN referenced by [RFC4328], ....

By reading RFC4328 section 2, it refers to ODU multiplexing. Am I missing something?

3) In Section 5.5., it says.

      Note that this case is supported by the procedures defined in
      [RFC3473] as a different Switching Capability/Type value is 
      used for the different control plane versions.

I am not sure which part of RFC3473 metions such procedures. Could you please point it?

o Nits: 
Section 4.1
s/Lo ODU/LO ODU/ 

Section 4.1
s/substitute/substituted

Section 5.6
s/section 5.2.1/section 5.2


Thanks,
Tomonori

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp