[CCAMP] R: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11.txt

"BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 26 September 2013 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32CD21E804B; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71UKlAygK2Jc; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C09A21E8096; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com []) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r8Q8oLOo025645 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:50:22 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com []) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r8Q8oKoe003204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:50:20 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:50:20 +0200
From: "BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOrVZHxRDnDyHdEEyWPohPw9hLvZnXx7Ag
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:50:19 +0000
Message-ID: <B9FEE68CE3A78C41A2B3C67549A96F482463FDB4@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <522DBBBC.7050103@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <522DBBBC.7050103@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: it-IT
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, CCAMP WG <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model.all@tools.ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] R: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11.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: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:50:35 -0000

Hello Joel,

thanks for your comments.
Below in line our reply, marked "authors".

Best Regards

The authors

Belotti Sergio-  System Architect
ALCATE-LUCENT  Optics Division
via Trento 30 Vimercate (MB) - Italy
phone +39 (039) 6863033
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di Joel M. Halpern
Inviato: lunedì 9 settembre 2013 14:15
A: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org; rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model.all@tools.ietf.org; CCAMP WG
Oggetto: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-11.txt


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, and sometimes on special request. 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-otn-g709-info-model-11.txt
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 9-September-2013
IETF LC End Date: 19-Sept-2013
Intended Status: Informational

Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

     In general, the document needs to be consistently clear as to what gaps it identifies.  Many cases are quite clear, and some are not.  I will try to identify the less clear cases in the comments below. The last paragraph of section 3.2 is clear and explicit, and what I expected at the end of each section.  The previous paragraph ("Specific information could be defined") is much less helpful.

Moderate Issues:
     It is unclear if there are gaps or requirements identified by sections 3.1.1 or 3.1.2.

Authors> The scope of both paragraph are not to suggest gaps or requirements but to describe data plane characteristics that are useful in the follow of the doc. Particularly they introduce the relationship between payload type concept in OTN and the Tributary Slot granularity, and this relation is reported in the session 3.2 in which specific CP requirements are defined.

     Given that this document is about mapping to G.709, it is unclear what is intended by the usage of "LSP".  My guess is that it is intended to mean Label Switch Paths set up by GMPLS to carry OTU/UDU elements. 
It should be stated explicitly.

Authors> We can specify this as you suggest even if we considered not necessary to specify the usage of LSP in relation to data plane specific. Encoding type should cope with this issue. 

Minor Issues:
     All acronyms should be expanded upon first use.

Authors> OK

     In section 2 particularly, the OCh (Optical Channel?) should also be clear how that relates to the OTU and ODU being discussed.

Authors> OK, you're right

     Figure 4 uses the abbreviation TSG, which is not defined, and not used elsewhere.  If it is needed in the figure, it might suffice to follow "TS granularity" in the caption with "(TSG)".

Authors> We can add TSG at the beginning of chapter 3.2 when TS granularity is mentioned

     Section 8 on Maximum LSP Bandwdith seems to be objecting to too much information leading to a "waste of bits".  While possibly of interest to the WG, that does not seem to fit a gap analysis.
     Similarly, section 10 on Priority Support reads as implementation advice rather than a gap needing protocol changes.

Authors> The basic scope of the draft is to underline gaps, and even if what described in Ch.8 and 10, do not prevent routing to work , it is suggested here an requirement for optimization based on OTN requirements (e.g. no need to advertise fixed ODU container Max LSP BW since implicit in the signal type.)


CCAMP mailing list