IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-09

Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Wed, 19 September 2018 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
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 0974E130FD7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 04:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rO4KGFQiG2Vu for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 04:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB725131024 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 04:01:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B732A99BFC8B4; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 12:01:21 +0100 (IST)
Received: from LHREML504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([10.201.109.59]) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com ([10.201.108.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Wed, 19 Sep 2018 12:01:20 +0100
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-09
Thread-Index: AQHURt5fYH3VqJqbfUa2vCqSD00EU6T3cbLw
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:01:21 +0000
Message-ID: <91E3A1BD737FDF4FA14118387FF6766B158E7299@lhreml504-mbs>
References: <HE1PR07MB16752E5536FE7B3B137D1746F0000@HE1PR07MB1675.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR07MB16752E5536FE7B3B137D1746F0000@HE1PR07MB1675.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.203.246.26]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_91E3A1BD737FDF4FA14118387FF6766B158E7299lhreml504mbs_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/jNz2_d8WIWgd1mHnZ2J1f3KS7V4>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-09
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:01:38 -0000

I have reviewed the document and support it

I just have two minor comments which could be easily addressed as part of WG LC, since they are aimed at improving the clarity of the text:


1)      The document scope indicates that the protocol extensions it defines are applicable to LSPs in Packet Switched Network (PSN) while the extensions are defined for the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object defined in RFC 6003



Since PSN, as defined in RFC 3985, refers to IP or MPLS networks while the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object, as defined in RFC 6003, has broader applicability, I would suggest to rephrase the abstract to apply the extensions defined in this document to any "GMPLS LSPs using the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC objects specified in [RFC 6003]"



2)      Since RFC 6003 defines also an Ethernet FLOWSPEC object having the same format as the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object (section 5 of RFC 6003),  it seems that also this document extensions apply to the Ethernet FLOWSPEC object



It may be worthwhile adding an explicit statement at the end of section 1 (Introduction) to make this more clear to a reader

Thanks, Italo

From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 8:00 AM
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-09

Working group,

Now that all the IPR declarations have been collected is time to start a two weeks working group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-09.
The last call ends on Friday September 21st . Please send you comments to the CCAMP mailing list.

All the IPR declarations from authors and contributors have been collected and can be found in the history of the document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability/history/
Please note that 1 IPR was disclosed against this draft https://datatracker.ietf..org/ipr/2414/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2414/>

Thanks,
Daniele, Fatai, Oscar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email