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

Daniele Ceccarelli <> Tue, 15 October 2013 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DBC11E8178; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 01:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.336
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.912, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pcMmfd6w9Nld; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 01:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F01311E8176; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 01:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7eff8e000000eda-87-525cfaf459c3
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CD.FC.03802.4FAFC525; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:21:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:21:06 +0200
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <>
To: Robert Sparks <>, General Area Review Team <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-Art LC review draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-09
Thread-Index: AQHOxpTYQNmSDPZ5K0y/v1v2nJjxqJn1bOqQ
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 08:21:05 +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_4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48163DD1ESESSMB301ericsso_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre7XXzFBBq0z2SyezLnBYvG34TWL xdVXn1ksrs1pZHNg8Viy5CeTx6ydT1g8vlz+zBbAHMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVcfzrEbaCrQUV t7ZdZGlgnJ/UxcjJISFgIvHj6iRGCFtM4sK99WwgtpDAYUaJndtruxi5gOwljBI3Di4FSnBw sAlYSTw55AMSFxF4zigx7eJkZpAGYQEXiUfLH4LZIgKuEn19f9ggbCOJA68PsILYLAKqEtM+ TgWzeQW8JdZ3nmWBWKYl8bV5MVicU0Bb4t7jV2C9jAKyEhN2LwI7jllAXOLWk/lMEIcKSCzZ c54ZwhaVePn4HyvIbRICihLL++VATGaBfImb56QhNglKnJz5hGUCo8gsJINmIVTNQlIFUaIn cWPqFDYIW1ti2cLXzBC2rsSMf4dYkMUXMLKvYmTPTczMSS832sQIjKmDW36r7mC8c07kEKM0 B4uSOO+Ht85BQgLpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOanFhxiZODilGhil8hx336r5b1oX/kbnl/Wsuzvq 6jV/d9pfnPKaU/DLPN7Foi3TRW2jpnY0MyQk/TmleLHuxL0TadylPW+X2/e6RQQ9yZ7iZrvX e/+BZoZFNQ6sKc92re9SLOde0r1I02SP6WtfP8Y7krL1aQc7PcuOlO9r45JxUNu4sHTZ109K n6tWx+4S2qvEUpyRaKjFXFScCACY65oddwIAAA==
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Gen-Art LC review draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 08:21:23 -0000

Hi Robert,

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

Daniele (& co-authors)

From: Robert Sparks []
Sent: venerdì 11 ottobre 2013 17:16
To: General Area Review Team;;
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


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" 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?
Same type of modification needs to applied to the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB at
Same type of modification needs to applied to the IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB at, 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