Re: [CCAMP] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Dear John, 

Thank you for the review, the authors have updated the document to address your comments and posted the updated document as draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-17.

Updates include:

- Fixing first use of OTN LTP
- Updated YANG build dates

Again, thanks for the support and review. 

Authors, Haomian and Italo.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: venerdì 8 dicembre 2023 20:11
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: [CCAMP] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I am balloting DISCUSS to ensure this point isn't missed, but intend to
> convert
> to YES; this is an excellent document.
> 
> Please don't forget to consider Tom Petch's review,
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/akNb8PDxCI5lw-
> HWx474EcMp1Cg/ In
> particular, Tom points out some references to possibly-outdated external
> specifications.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In section 4.4 you mention OTN LTPs, I assume you're talking about "logical
> termination points". Please consider expanding LTP, I did check in RFC 7062
> to
> see if it's defined there; it's not.
> 
> Also, when you produce a new version, please make sure you update the
> 2022
> dates... unless there's some reason not to?
> 
> 
>