Re: [CCAMP] Early thoughts on draft-zheng-ccamp-cpe-otn-fwk

"Adrian Farrel" <> Thu, 13 December 2018 22:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 214B1130EAB; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:10:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SyIf8DMQ6ESR; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD2BD130FBB; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:10:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id wBDMAdvv010045; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:10:39 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119852203B; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:10:39 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F06F52203A; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:10:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id wBDMAbbg004363 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:10:38 GMT
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
References: <060801d49320$cef9c920$6ced5b60$>
In-Reply-To: <060801d49320$cef9c920$6ced5b60$>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:10:36 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <065201d49330$ad251970$076f4c50$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0653_01D49330.AD276360"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQDc1vYzYmOTvoZeM2MssPFC6yseBKdsstpw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--23.513-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--23.513-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--23.512500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: C/snMIRQLS3xIbpQ8BhdbA8BN6p1P0Ez+kuaU6pTXgK1eX0jEQ9c6rVV xb/m4VMkTso1Bs8tg9afw1P6tDZ2F/ZomtZBUIXQ9Ib/6w+1lWSZf5btvM85ASFfLRXLwJLUOwn 1mQW5/kaIhgPVtyx3hh1+Y4tL57RJbLfoydCzQDNwUSK4/EeOxZZ6zKu0q4rt47E6rstCUYtWFs MQfbcNE1IIEk1f4+ehzCWA9GkRdEWZIkf8glt8T+9VsdrlGzy3Q6/DFZugyt27/NQTVI1I+cbK+ pu0ZYwRBHVm0xh58VY8LuP+bOkMWt3jF2fVcPdzDB+ErBr0bANar2Wff4KSIaUXswX/xrIS1BoO 0FXL0sjuDNx+Tk7mC2JdCNPFSfXrp3Cwl7p83YsSDAzxRL+lMZkShYcLpGH9BL+V9lD389FL/hr /YMmS/27Wbor+4y0Fykd8OBP8tMSXBXaJoB9JZxRFJJyf5BJetOt1ofVlaoKm8jxRk5/juOvy5X Ndq++DUoyoh46y2J84wHSyGpeEeu+c3o1BgdbW/eEdhXuRuC7bBFa8eHFRf8iN2hN83noEeY8Mc 2c5rEA=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Early thoughts on draft-zheng-ccamp-cpe-otn-fwk
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:10:50 -0000

John Drake helpfully points out that I did not mean RFC 6902. That should be
RFC 6092.


My brain and my fingers will now go outside and talk to each other.




From: CCAMP <> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 13 December 2018 20:17
Subject: [CCAMP] Early thoughts on draft-zheng-ccamp-cpe-otn-fwk


Hi Haomian and Ruiquan,


I just read your draft on control of CPE in optical transport networks.


It's an interesting topic, and I look forward to reading sections 6 and 7
when you have them.


In the meantime, here are some small nits I picked up along the way.









s/describes the terminals/describes terminals/




The Table of Contents seems to have some format problems and doesn't

match the sections in the document.




Section 1


s/backbone network,/backbone networks,/




For section 1.2 you may find some useful prior work in RFC 6204.

Although the Terminology section (section 2) in that document is only

somewhat helpful, you'll find other terms explained later in the 



Terms you use that could usefully be in this section include:


- Orchestrator System







Section 2.1


s/In the Figure 1/In Figure 1/

s/of OTN network/of an OTN/

s/accessed to respective/accessed via respective/




Section 2.1


You have...

   This architecture is 

   an extension of existing one with controller hierarchies.


s/existing/an existing/


Do you have a reference for this? It would be helpful to be able to 

check back to a figure that is the basis for this work.




Section 3


s/interactions are should be/interactions should be/




Section 4


s/kind of/kinds of/




For section 8, you might look at RFC 6902 for some starting points.




I suspect Section 9 can be a simple NOP...

   This document makes not requests for IANA action.