[CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Authors,
	I have the following LC comments:

General comments:

- This document also needs some addition work on conformance language.
I'll try to point out cases in the detailed comments below.

- Section 5 essentially defines a new set of traffic parameters.  Given
the changes, why not ask for a new C-TYPE and not worry about [RFC4328]
compatibility/description?

Detailed editorial and technical comments:

- 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-signaling-g709v3-04.txt
shows there are unresolved nits that need to resolved .  I'm using line
numbers from this url in my subsequent comments.

- Line 2: The document is currently written as if it "Updates" 4328 this
should be identified in the header.

- Line 43: drop "Recent progress in", replace "standardization" with
[G.709-V3]

- Line 45-53.  Drop all starting from "Several..."

- Lines 95-128: Not sure this adds anything.  Should just reference FWK,
INFO, OSPF and drop the rest.

- Section 3.  Perhaps combine with section 1.

- Section 4, lines 208-238.  For future "proofing"/compatibility, I
suggest removing the bandwidths (2.5, 10, 40 Gbps). or changing all the
"i.e."s into "e.g."s.

- Section 5: assuming this is now a new c-type need text for that, as
well as to formally defined the fields/field sizes.

- Lines 285-287: replace all lines with "The valid Signal Type values
defined in [RFC4328] are updated to be:"

- Lines 309-318.  I found this really hard to understand.  Why not just
call it Tolerance?

- Lines 320-336,338-346 are essentially repeated in sections 5.1 and
5.2, why not move this text into their respective sections?

- lines 445-468: Why not just carry "n" directly?

- Lines 472-482: Suggest replacing all lines with something like:
This section defines the format of the OTN-TDM Generalized Label.

- Line 484: replace "New definition of ODU" with "OTN-TDM"  Switching Type.

- Lines 486-487: Replace lines with "The following is the Generalized
Label format for that MUST be used with the OTN-TDM Switching Type"

- Line 499: "can be figured out locally according to the identifier of"
--> "is identified by"

- Line 562: "number of bit" --> "number of bits". The valid values for
this field are 0, 4 and 8, right?  If so, this should be spelled out.

- Line 576: "Padded bits" seems off, how about "Pad bits" or "Padding",
also bits aren't represented in label format (line 494)., also "behind"
--> "after"

- Lines 580-588: I suspect these lines should be in a procedures
section, as there should be specific processing rules governing the
described usage.

Section 6.2: I like the examples, but IMO they belong at the end of
section 6, not in the middle of the normative language.

- Line 656: Generally the processing rules are presented in sections
titled "Procedures".  It is true that this wasn't the case in rfc4328
(section 4.2). I'd suggest following one of the two existing precedents
rather coming up with a third variant.

- Lines 658-660.  The normative language in 4328 isn't actually
presented in the section titled "label distribution procedures" (or
"rules" as section 4.2 is actually titled), so this paragraph doesn't
make sense.  I suggest either (a) defining the full set of required
procedures in this document, or (b) referring to the "required
processing defined in [RFC4328]" and other rfcs as appropriate.

- Lines 662-667: what about generating upstream, suggested, label set,
etc.  Perhaps you should rephrase much into more general rules.

- Line 682: by "learn" do you mean "identify"?

- Lines 682-685: Who is this learning/identification accomplished?

- Lines 703-704: If this is the normative section defining requirement
processing, the procedures need to be spelled out for all required cases.

- Lines 706-707: I think this needs to be rephrased to be clear what
behavior is required for a node to be conformant with this sentence.

- Lines 711-714: why "SHOULD" vs "MUST"?

- Line 712: By "integrity of the label" do you mean "if the label is
acceptable"?

- Line 725: By "reserved resource" do you mean "indicated resource"?

- Line 726: Does "do not match" mean "inconsistent"?

- Line 730, Drop "As".

- Section 6.4: Missing conformance language.

- Lines 758-759: This reads like an informative statement, but includes
conformance language.  How does a node conform?  I suggest rephrasing to
be clear.

- Line 761: Why not just make this a MUST?

- Line 763: "SHOULD" --> "MUST"

- lines 768-779: Should either contain conformance language or pointers
to existing language.

- Line 783: Why not MUST?

- Section 9, should also reference 4328 and cover delta in information
and added risks.

- Section 10: This section needs some work.  (I'm assuming your familiar
with rfc5226).

- Is it time to create a "Signal Type" registry?

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
> 
> 
> 
>