Re: [CCAMP] [Gen-art] Gen-Art LC review draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-09

Hi Jari,

Yes, you're right. When doing the modifications is missed the IANA section ones.

I just uploaded the v12 to fix it.

Many thanks
Daniele

Many thanks for your review, Robert! Daniele, thank you for the modifications. However, I do not see the IANA section modification yet in -11. But maybe I missed it. Has that been incorporated to the latest version? (I thought your text suggestion looked fine.)

Jari

On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:21 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli at ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>  
> Many thanks for your review. Please find comments/replies in line.
>  
> BR
> Daniele (& co-authors)
>  
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks at nostrum.com] 
> Sent: venerdì 11 ottobre 2013 17:16
> To: General Area Review Team; ccamp at ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3 at tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Gen-Art LC review draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-09
>  
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. 
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
> you may receive. 
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-09
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 11-Oct-2013
> IETF LC End Date: 16-Oct-2013
> IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.
> 
> This document is dense (as in it puts a lot of information in a small number of characters), but it reads clearly.
> I did not carefully review the contents of the example fields for editorial mistakes - please be sure someone in the group has done that.
> 
> The largest issue I see is on the border of being more than a nit. I'm calling it a nit because it should be very easy to fix:
> The sentence "Same type of modification needs to applied to the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib"; is not sufficient instruction to IANA to cause that registry to be modified. Please provide more precise
> instructions as to how this mib should change.
> 
> [[Authors]] How about the following?
> 
> OLD
> 
> Same type of modification needs to applied to the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib
> 
> NEW
> 
> Same type of modification needs to applied to the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib, where the value
> 
> OTN-TDM (110),     -- Time-Division-Multiplex OTN-TDM capable
> 
> Will be added to the IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION syntax list.
> 
> 
> 
> I note also that the value 40 from RFC6060 didn't make it into the mib.
> 
> The rest of these are more nitty nits:
> 
> ---
> In section 4, I think you've repeated a MUST, and risk introducing confusion.
> It's awkward to point to this with paragraph numbers because of the interspersed tables, so I'll quote the relevant block:
> 
>    When supporting the extensions defined in this document, the
>    Switching Capability and Encoding values MUST be used as follows:
>  
>    - Switching Capability = OTN-TDM
>    - Encoding Type = G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) as defined in [RFC4328]
>  
>    Both for fixed and flexible ODUs the same switching type and encoding
>    values MUST be used.
> If I read that correctly , those are the same MUST and you're saying it's a MUST no matter whether you're talking about fixed or flexible ODUs.
> If that's correct I suggest replacing this with:
> 
>    When supporting the extensions defined in this document, for both
>    fixed and flexible ODUs, the Switching Capability and Encoding values 
>    MUST be used as follows:
>  
>    - Switching Capability = OTN-TDM
>    - Encoding Type = G.709 ODUk (Digital Path) as defined in [RFC4328]
> (or leave out the fixed and flexible clarification altogether - I would not have been confused without it). 
> [[Authors]] Comment correct. New text adopted.
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> In section 8.2, where you say "IANA will create and maintain a new registry", I suggest you say "new sub-registry".
> [[Authors]] OK
> 
> 
> RjS
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art