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

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

Many thanks for your review. Please find comments/replies in line.

BR
Daniele (& co-authors)

From: Robert Sparks [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: venerdì 11 ottobre 2013 17:16
To: General Area Review Team; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
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><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