Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG LAST CALL on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry

Daniele Ceccarelli <> Wed, 10 February 2016 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18891AD2DF; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:21:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bLztgj-qPuZl; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:21:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D109B1B29F2; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:21:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f78fe6d00000163a-be-56bb39557460
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 78.7D.05690.5593BB65; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:21:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:21:25 +0100
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: 2nd WG LAST CALL on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry
Thread-Index: AdFezuI1r8qiDLANQ/K2Ab0P8XnyVgFNjfOg
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:21:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48161B1A64ESESSMB301erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrKIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7rm6Y5e4wg+4FrBZLd2xisngy5waL xeWubnaL3dtmslnMmH2Z1YHV42X/HEaPnbPusnssWfKTKYA5issmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvj8MFt jAW3rjFWNP/6xtbAOPsgYxcjJ4eEgInErctnmSBsMYkL99azdTFycQgJHGaU6Lx+mBkkISSw hFGi+7VTFyMHB5uAlcSTQz4gYREBVYkzNy8ygtQzC8xjkth6+gIzSI2wgK/EidVcEDUBEv0L J7BA2EYSNx/9YAexWYB6F63ewQZi8wKVb33VCbXKV2LBlMtgt3EK+ElsWNfGCmIzCshKTNi9 CCzOLCAucevJfKibBSSW7DnPDGGLSrx8/I8VwlaUuDp9ORNEfb7E74etLBC7BCVOznzCMoFR dBaSUbOQlM1CUgYR15O4MXUKG4StLbFs4WtmCFtXYsa/QyzI4gsY2VcxihanFhfnphsZ66UW ZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBEbmwS2/dXcwrn7teIhRgINRiYfXwHxXmBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiUR3r8S u8OEeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ865xXh8mJJCeWJKanZpakFoEk2Xi4JRqYFy/z3XD fX4dKc7XN6N4npS1tdRb+PbrbXvaHrPBOX1G+7Pa86vfT6mIt3K0LFzkca+jViz+ddNZh+CT dv0KU++KGm6YOedbvfcL9Sfu04NKJc8XuZV4bnfcuO7SnWYTaY9VsnE7kyfqnitfVPS1Ku2f oQ2DTdntKZM0ziXX31WvZY6eYecipMRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAGRmuG7IAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG LAST CALL on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:21:32 -0000


The WG last call is now closed. We will request the publication of the draft.

Authors, please remember to add a line to the header saying that the draft, if approved, updates RFC7139. This can be done when addressing the comments from the next review steps.

Daniele & Fatai

From: Daniele Ceccarelli []
Sent: mercoledì 3 febbraio 2016 23:11
Subject: 2nd WG LAST CALL on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry


The OTN signal type sub-registry draft was sent back to the working group to be updated accordingly to the directions below.
A new version is now available (-03).

This starts a one week WG Last Call (second one)  on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03.
The last call will end on Wednesday February 10th.
Please review the changes and send your comments to the list.

Daniele & Fatai

From: Daniele Ceccarelli []
Sent: venerdì 29 gennaio 2016 09:18
Subject: RE: AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry

WG, authors,

The discussion on the OTN additional signal type drafts triggered a further discussion on the OTN signal type sub-registry draft that ended up with the decision to send the draft back to the WG for some fixing.
Here a summary of the discussion and way forward for the 2 drafts:


-          Fix the editorial part as suggested by Deborah below

-          IANA section needs to be updated indicating the registry and the following registration policies:  "Standards Action" (for Standards Track documents) and "Specification Required" (for other documents). The designated expert is any current CCAMP WG chair.

-          A new short Last Call will be issued as soon as the new version will be available.


-          Adrian's comments to be addressed:  ( )

-          Intended status: Informational

-          Have G.sup43 as normative reference

-          Have draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry as normative reference

-          State that the document requests code points from the not standards track part of the registry.

-          The last call will be extended to end together with the last call of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry one (as this document is depending on it).


Sent: mercoledì 27 gennaio 2016 18:30
Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry


In doing my AD review of this draft, I found the IANA Considerations section confusing and have returned the draft to the WG. To have both Standards Action and IETF Review specified is an overlap. I've discussed with your Chairs and they have a proposal to discuss with you. I would hope this is non-controversial and can be done quickly (can be a shortened WG Last Call) and we can get on with publishing the document.

When fixing, I recommend removing one of the two paragraphs from the Introduction as they are duplicates. It's ok the draft is short and to the point. As this draft is forward looking for the registry, it would be best to generalize vs. repeating text from the other draft on Sup43, so I recommend removing the 1st paragraph and keeping the second paragraph (with some tweaks).