[CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 24 July 2013 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2D121F9DD0 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m4XNnnvz9uHS for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F6721F9AFE for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6OHCiS4030731; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:12:44 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6OHChDY030711 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:12:43 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework.all@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:12:41 +0100
Message-ID: <03c801ce8891$02322800$06967800$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac6IkPjHAf7FJy/FS5u7e31pZmaAPg==
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:12:52 -0000

Thanks for this document. It is really well-written and a good read.
I am sure a lot of effort went into it, so many thanks for the 
attention you have given to getting it right.

I have two requests for small additions to the document and a couple
of nits.  Obviously, these comments are up for debate, but until then
I have placed the document in "Revised I-D Needed" state.  Once we
resolve these issues or you post a new revision I will issue IETF last
call.

Thanks,
Adrian

===


Please add a new section to provide a discussion of network management
and OAM.  A way to approach this is to look at Appendix A of RFC 5706 
and use that to guide to what you should write. Alternatively, you could
use RFC 6123 to give you guidance and structure.

This information is more important in the framework document than in the
protocol documents because it will set the scene correctly. A lot of
this can probably be done by reference to existing documentation, and a
total of only a few paragraphs will probably suffice.

I suggest this goes in as Section 5.7 "Implications for Management of
GMPLS Networks"

---

"OTN" needs to be expanded on first use in the Introduction.

---

The phrase "OTN network" seems to be redundant. 

---

Section 7 should talk about whether the DCN is likely to be in the 
overhead and therefore in-fiber.  This approach, together with access 
lists at the network edges, provides a significant security feature.