[CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09

[Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,

Regarding [G709-v1] reference, there is only general reference to [G709-v1] and [G709-v1a1], ie., no specific text is referenced from some specific place of these two documents, so we reused the same approach used by [RFC4328], otherwise, [G709-v1] and [G709-v1a1] should be used together to replace the alone [G709-v1] (because it is really difficult to differentiate either [G709-v1] or [G709-v1a1] should be referenced). 

Here is the referenced used by [RFC4328]: 
[ITUT-G709] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network (OTN)," G.709 Recommendation (and Amendment 1), February 2001 (October 2001).

Is that acceptable for you?

In addition, the nits will be resolved in the next update.




Best Regards

Fatai


-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2012年11月13日 21:56
收件人: Fatai Zhang; [e-mail]
抄送: CCAMP
主题: Re: 答复: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09

Fatai, Authors,
	Thank you for the update.  Please see below for specific responses.

On 11/13/2012 1:32 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi Lou and all, 
> 
> A new version has been submitted with the udpates based on the comments from Lou.
> 
> Please see more in-line below marked with [Fatai]. 
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Fatai
> 
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Lou Berger
> 发送时间: 2012年10月20日 7:06
> 收件人: CCAMP; [e-mail]
> 主题: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09
> 
> Authors,
> 	I have the following LC comments:
> 
> 
> General comment:
> - I have a comment related to the info document, that I'll cover in a
> separate mail on the info-model document .
> 
> - I found appendix A to not be very informative and thing there are
> better examples in the other documents, suggest either moving one ore
> more to this document or drop the appendix.
> 
> [Fatai] The appendix has been dropped, because we think it is better to keep the examples in the other documents. 
> 

Okay.  You might want to have a reference to examples in other documents
where appropriate.

> The remaining comments are editorial in nature
> 
> - Please verify that abbreviations are defined before being used .
> There are a number of these.
> 
> [Fatai] Checked and updated. 

great.

> 
> - Please use a consistent decimal representation (sometimes commas are
> used other times periods)
> 
> [Fatai] Checked and commas are used.

okay.

> 
> - 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.
> 
> [Fatai] [G709-V3A2] is introduced and referenced in the right place.

It looks like v1 still has this issue.

> -
> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-09.txt
> shows there are unresolved nits that need to resolved .  I'm using line
> numbers from this url in my subsequent comments.

In your next update, please resolve the nits as reported in
http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-10.txt

The rest looks good.

Much thanks,
Lou

> 
> - Line 46: How about replace "as consented in October 2009" with "as
> published in 2009."
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Line 255: Drop "approved in 2009" the reference is sufficient
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Line 260: suggest the following change:
> OLD
>                 2.5Gb/s     1.25Gb/s           Nominal Bit rate
> NEW
>                 Time Slot Granularity
>                 2.5Gb/s     1.25Gb/s           Nominal Bit rate
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Lines 272-274: Please add the appropriate reference to G.709 section
> or table that points to where one finds the information on determining
> actual bit rate.
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Line 307: suggest changing "into the OTUk" --> "into a specific OTUk"
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Line 340/1: need a reference to where this is defined.
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted and added.
> 
> - Line 346-347: Need a reference to where this behavior is defined.
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted and added.
> 
> - Lines 387/388.  Isn't this sentence OBE and should be dropped?
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Page 11, RWA is used in a few places on this page as is OCh layer,
> suggest replacing all instances of RWA with OCH or "OCh layer".
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Line 500: what do you mean by "including OCh layer visibility."? this
> isn't really reflected in the solutions documents (other than as MLN).
> 
> [Fatai] Deleted to avoid ambiguity. 
> 
> - Line 589: replace "New label" with "A new label format"
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Line 636: replace "some" with "sufficient"
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Lines 639-641: drop lines (seems redundant with following paragraph)
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted and dropped.
> 
> - Line 686: your usage of "just" is a bit odd, how about replace "be
> just switched" with "restricted to switching"
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Line 688: similarly how about replace "just terminated" to "restricted
> to termination"
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - lines 714-719, probably should have a reference to [rfc4201]
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Line 879: Replace "contrary" with "opposite" or "reverse"
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Line 888. I suggest adding "Although, this is not greater than the
> risks presented by the existing OTN control plane as defined by
> [RFC4203] and [RFC4328]."
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Lines 888-890, I suggest dropping the sentence starting with "The data
> plane technology..." for multiple reasons, not least of which is that
> the ITU-T owns the data plane so the comment is completely out of scope.
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> - Lines 1081/2: The whole document is non-normative, so just drop this
> sentence.
> 
> [Fatai] Accepted.
> 
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>