Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-info, general-constraint-encode, rwa-wson-encode, gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te, wson-signal-compatibility-ospf, wson-signaling

Hi Lou,

In the update just published, all your general comments have been applied to draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info. 

Thanks.
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:25 PM
To: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-info, general-constraint-encode, rwa-wson-encode, gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te, wson-signal-compatibility-ospf, wson-signaling

Authors,
	I have some general comments on these documents as a set, i.e., that apply to all documents.  I also have document specific comments that I'll send separately.

Note that I'm the document shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more information.

General comments:

- Broken cross references:  The documents have a lot of pointers to each other, many of which are broken and need to be fixed.  For example (and NOT the only one!) the signaling document has:
   <RBInformation> is defined in Section 4.1 of [WSON-Encode].

1. While the section reference is correct (but check others as this isn't always the case), there is no <RBInformation> defined in the document.  The problem here is inconsistent usage of BNF and expanded style names.  I think it's fine to use both, e.g., <RBInformation> and Resource Block Information, but there needs to be consistent cross referencing and definitions.  This problem also exists within drafts too.

2. As above, please verify cross referenced section numbers

- It looks like there are still some vestigial references to "ingress"
and "egress" (noted as replaced by "input" and "output").  This also shows in abbreviations where 'E' is used rather than 'O'.

- In a number of documents s/GPID/G-PID

- Revision history should be removed at this point.

- Please ensure abbreviations are expanded on first use. See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt for additional guidance.

- Your terminology sections include terms that are only used in this section.  This does not make sense.  The terminology section also duplicates what is already in RFC6163. I suggest eliminating such sections and adding references to RFC6163 if/where needed.

- Please double check that there are no idnits

- Please update any references that are now RFCs, e.g., RBNF

- A general discussion on security in GMPLS networks can be found in RFC5920.  I suggest adding an informative reference in your security sections.

Thanks,
Lou

On 10/1/2013 12:34 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> All,
> 
> This mail begins working group last call on the WSON documents.  As 
> there are 6 documents in this set, the last call will be three weeks.
> The documents included in the last call are:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-18
> (Informational, IPR Disclosed)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-
> 11
> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-21
> (Standards Track)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-
> ospf-te-05
> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-
> ospf-12
> (Standards Track, IPR Disclosed)
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-06 
> (Standards
> Track) Also has one open issue that will need to be resolved as part 
> of LC, see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/ticket/52.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it 
> is ready for publication", are welcome!
> 
> Please note that we're still missing some IPR statements.  Any 
> forthcoming publication request will be delayed by late IPR 
> statements/disclosures.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp