Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 05 September 2013 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834E611E8150; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DVXLHk2eVyLl; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2E521F92E7; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r850lfx0011934; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:47:41 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (98-28-103-175.static.broadbandsolutions.com.au [175.103.28.98] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r850lZFj011909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:47:38 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Fatai Zhang'" <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "'Tomonori TAKEDA'" <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>, <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
References: <201308300547.r7U5l5MQ014566@imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA602BB@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CA602BB@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 01:47:36 +0100
Message-ID: <056801cea9d1$8750edd0$95f2c970$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJJVOU0nh0b9AhunXzrR9nq53jiIgKqENLkmKuoRyA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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, 05 Sep 2013 00:48:14 -0000

Thanks Fatai and Tomonori.

I have entered Tomonori's review into my comment in the IESG evaluation.
We will pick them up after the rest of the IESG has done their review.

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Fatai Zhang
> Sent: 02 September 2013 10:26
> To: Tomonori TAKEDA; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-
> framework.all@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-
> 14.txt
> 
> Hi Tomonori,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> I think the changes should be very minor per your comments, and I would defer
> to ADs/WG chairs to decide if we need update the draft before publication.
> 
> See more for your points.
> 
> Point 1: Yes, this is specific to OTN and please see the [OTN-OSPF] draft for
the
> priority information.
> 
> Point 2: Yes, it refers to ODU multiplexing. The legacy OTN here includes
> [RFC4328] and Pre-[RFC4328] (but there is no IETF draft for Pre-[RFC4328]),
and
> Pre-[RFC4328] could not support multiplexing hierarchy, so I think we can
change
> the original text to "since multiplexing hierarchy may not be supported by the
> legacy OTN ".
> 
> Point 3: I think we can remove "Note that..." sentence because it is about
> solution specific, which has been described in solution drafts.
> 
> All nits should be accepted.
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Fatai
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Tomonori TAKEDA
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:47 PM
> To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-
> framework.all@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 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. 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-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt
> Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
> Review Date: 30 August 2013
> IETF LC End Date: 02 September 2013
> Intended Status: Informational
> 
> o Summary:
> This document describes framework for GMPLS/PCE control of OTN and impacts
> on GMPLS/PCE protocols. Overview of OTN is mentioned, which is helpful to
> understand the document.
> 
> o Comments:
> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
> before publication.
> (I think these are mostly related to clarification questions.)
> 
> o Major Issues:
> No major issues found.
> 
> o Minor Issues:
> 
> 1) In Section 5.3., it says the following requirement for GMPLS routing.
>  -  Support different priorities for resource reservation
> 
> I think this is a valid requirement, but I do not think this is specific to
OTN.
> Does this imply the need for protocol extensions or just the usage of
protocols?
> 
> 2) Section 5.4., it says:
> 
>        Furthermore, since multiplexing hierarchy was not allowed
>        by the legacy OTN referenced by [RFC4328], ....
> 
> By reading RFC4328 section 2, it refers to ODU multiplexing. Am I missing
> something?
> 
> 3) In Section 5.5., it says.
> 
>       Note that this case is supported by the procedures defined in
>       [RFC3473] as a different Switching Capability/Type value is
>       used for the different control plane versions.
> 
> I am not sure which part of RFC3473 metions such procedures. Could you please
> point it?
> 
> o Nits:
> Section 4.1
> s/Lo ODU/LO ODU/
> 
> Section 4.1
> s/substitute/substituted
> 
> Section 5.6
> s/section 5.2.1/section 5.2
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Tomonori
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp