[CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Authors,
	I have the following LC comments:


General comment:
- I have a comment related to the info document, that I'll cover in a
separate mail on the info-model document .

- I found appendix A to not be very informative and thing there are
better examples in the other documents, suggest either moving one ore
more to this document or drop the appendix.

The remaining comments are editorial in nature

- Please verify that abbreviations are defined before being used .
There are a number of these.

- Please use a consistent decimal representation (sometimes commas are
used other times periods)

- the references [G709-v1] and [G709-v3] each actually refer to multiple
documents, each documented needs to have it's own (correct) reference,
i.g., [G709-v1] and [G709-v1a1]. The document text will need to be
revisited to ensure the proper reference is made.

-
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09.txt
shows there are unresolved nits that need to resolved .  I'm using line
numbers from this url in my subsequent comments.

- Line 46: How about replace "as consented in October 2009" with "as
published in 2009."

- Line 255: Drop "approved in 2009" the reference is sufficient

- Line 260: suggest the following change:
OLD
                2.5Gb/s     1.25Gb/s           Nominal Bit rate
NEW
                Time Slot Granularity
                2.5Gb/s     1.25Gb/s           Nominal Bit rate

- Lines 272-274: Please add the appropriate reference to G.709 section
or table that points to where one finds the information on determining
actual bit rate.

- Line 307: suggest changing "into the OTUk" --> "into a specific OTUk"

- Line 340/1: need a reference to where this is defined.

- Line 346-347: Need a reference to where this behavior is defined.

- Lines 387/388.  Isn't this sentence OBE and should be dropped?

- Page 11, RWA is used in a few places on this page as is OCh layer,
suggest replacing all instances of RWA with OCH or "OCh layer".

- Line 500: what do you mean by "including OCh layer visibility."? this
isn't really reflected in the solutions documents (other than as MLN).

- Line 589: replace "New label" with "A new label format"

- Line 636: replace "some" with "sufficient"

- Lines 639-641: drop lines (seems redundant with following paragraph)

- Line 686: your usage of "just" is a bit odd, how about replace "be
just switched" with "restricted to switching"

- Line 688: similarly how about replace "just terminated" to "restricted
to termination"

- lines 714-719, probably should have a reference to [rfc4201]

- Line 879: Replace "contrary" with "opposite" or "reverse"

- Line 888. I suggest adding "Although, this is not greater than the
risks presented by the existing OTN control plane as defined by
[RFC4203] and [RFC4328]."

- Lines 888-890, I suggest dropping the sentence starting with "The data
plane technology..." for multiple reasons, not least of which is that
the ITU-T owns the data plane so the comment is completely out of scope.

- Lines 1081/2: The whole document is non-normative, so just drop this
sentence.


That's it on this document.

Lou

On 10/8/2012 4:47 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> This mail begins a two week working group last call on:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09
> (Informational)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-04
> (Informational)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-03
> (Standards Track)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04
> (Standards Track)
> 
> This working group last call ends on October 22.  Comments should be
> sent to the CCAMP mailing list.  Please remember to include the
> technical basis for any comments.
> 
> Please note that we're still missing a few IPR statements, and look
> for these to come in during the LC period.  Any forthcoming publication
> request will be delayed by late IPR statements/disclosures.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
>