Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd

Daniele Ceccarelli <> Thu, 21 January 2016 09:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F8B1A1BC2 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 01:44:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o8W4u5Yx1mb4 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 01:44:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 800B21A1BC3 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 01:44:27 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79456d000001332-01-56a0a879c78a
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 06.AF.04914.978A0A65; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:44:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:44:24 +0100
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <>
To: Dieter Beller <>, Fatai Zhang <>, "" <>, 'CCAMP' <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd
Thread-Index: AdFSppQiEnkellx9R4+Kcp/CADqbcQAMlSAAABpGiYAANtXwAAAEomeg
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:44:24 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <01bf01d152e1$4bb9ebd0$e32dc370$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE4816189771ESESSMB301erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrFIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7lG7ligVhBrtuiFr86LnBbPFkzg0W i3VL7rBY9DWfZ3Vg8Wg58pbVY8mSn0wed29dYvJYsXklYwBLFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfG2jOz mApmbWOs6HjwhrGBsWcBYxcjJ4eEgInEpL1zWSBsMYkL99azgdhCAocZJRZt8uxi5AKylzBK rN7cx9TFyMHBJmAl8eSQD0hcRGA2o8Sho+9YQRqEBXIlTmz4DDZIRCBP4uqhfawg9SICbhIX p9WChFkEVCValh9mArF5BXwlnh5qYYKY/5JR4vJFiCM4BTQlXr1sApvJKCArMWH3IrBDmQXE JW49mc8EcaiAxJI955khbFGJl4//sULYihIfX+2Dqs+X+HUWYg6vgKDEyZlPWCYwisxCMmoW krJZSMog4noSN6ZOYYOwtSWWLXzNDGHrSsz4d4gFWXwBI/sqRtHi1OLi3HQjY73Uoszk4uL8 PL281JJNjMAYPLjlt+4OxtWvHQ8xCnAwKvHwGtycHybEmlhWXJl7iFGCg1lJhFdOZUGYEG9K YmVValF+fFFpTmrxIUZpDhYlcd5kmcYwIYH0xJLU7NTUgtQimCwTB6dUA6PN/t8NsbP0rK9a 22coZPPNlZ9Yu5HPZO2edqsDoSnrHjh+WKq19jBX0Z3Xl09dP7aOo+KBPusRgZ2Wm49qFOx6 XPs5ek2up8whpcuW8y1blkZEL4561s/NGR+17vJfgXl+nYIc0RcPTYi+naln57P19L8UT5Vf S1IuXSn6qbMsdDXLer/Qpa1KLMUZiYZazEXFiQC+P0ywvQIAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 21 Jan 2016 09:44:32 -0000

Hi Dieter,

I don't think here the point is whether g.sup43 is normative or informative. We're defining an extension to a protocol, and:

-          If an implementation wants to claim compatibility to the RFCtobe, the extension MUST be supported by the implementation

-          If we want the IANA to assign a code, the document needs to be standard track.


From: Dieter Beller []
Sent: giovedì 21 gennaio 2016 09:29
To: Fatai Zhang;; Daniele Ceccarelli; 'CCAMP'
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd

Hi Adrian, all,

I concur with Fatai.

The rules concerning supplements are provided in ITU-T recommendation A.13, see:

There you find:

2.4          Supplements are only informative and are therefore not considered to be an integral part of any Recommendation(s).


On 20.01.2016 07:18, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your review.

I just have one question to confirm my understanding.

We know that G.sup43 is a non-normative recommendation defined by ITU-T SG15, is it valid to define a "Standards Track" RFC for G.sup43?

Best Regards


From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 1:46 AM
To: 'Daniele Ceccarelli'; 'CCAMP'
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd

Thanks Daniele.

It would be nice as a general principle to have the document nit-free before last call, but anyway, the authors can handle that as part of the last call comments and make the necessary fixes before the I-D goes forward. Maybe the same applies to the formatting, page breaks and so on?

I reviewed and commented on this document some time back and it appears to be much better now. Thanks to the authors.

Here are some nits...

The Abstract is full of abbreviations that will need to be expanded.

The text uses the term "draft" to describe itself. If you change this to be "document" it will remain consistent when the I-D becomes an RFC.

It would be nice if the IANA considerations section gave IANA a little more help. Specifically...
IANA maintains a registry called "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" with a subregistry called "OTN Signal Type". IANA is requested to make three further allocations from that registry as follows.
You might also give IANA guidance about which numbers to allocate as they will want to know whether to use the unassigned values in the 12-19 range or values in the 23-255 range. They will also wonder about 5.

I don't see how G.sup43 can be other than a normative reference. It looks to me from that the revision you reference is actually in force (i.e., not "for agreement").

And lastly (I'm sure we've had this discussion before) the registry is marked with the Registration Procedure "Standards Action" yet this document is marked as "Informational". That will mean that IANA will (should) refuse to assign the code points.


From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 19 January 2016 10:47
To: CCAMP (<>)
Subject: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02 and call for sheperd

Working group,

Thanks to the prompt reply from the authors we're ready to start the WG last for this document.

This starts a two weeks working group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-02.
The last call ends on Tuesday  February 2nd.
Please send your 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:
Please note that no IPR was disclosed against this draft.

If anyone is willing to be the shepherd of the document, please volunteer.


Daniele & Fatai


CCAMP mailing list<>