[CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp

Siddharth Aanand <sidd_hyd@yahoo.com> Thu, 30 September 2021 15:49 UTC

Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:47:34 +0000
From: Siddharth Aanand <sidd_hyd@yahoo.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1096741111.632541.1633016854672@mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_632540_2102581641.1633016854670"
References: <1096741111.632541.1633016854672.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/u5pHn70kdGF4ILgL5nSzmIRQl7g>
Subject: [CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp
Precedence: list

Folks,

 

I didn’t hear any response on my previous feedback, so I’mreposting this.

 

Thanks,

Sidd

 

From: Sidd Aanand 
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 6:03 PM
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp@ietf.org
Cc: Sidd Aanand <Sidd.Aanand@rbbn.com>
Subject: comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp

 

Hello Authors,

 

I have gone through the draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp andhave the following comments.

 
   
   - Typo in section 3.1. "In case of" instead of "In case og"
   - Typo in same sentence, "In case of GMPLS," - add a comma after GMPLS
   - Section 3.2, the is repeated twice
   - Section 3.2, ROADM mispelt as ROAMD
   - Section 3.3, what is meant by a CP? This is context of "NMS or CP"
   - Section 3.4, "In a fourth step" should be replaced by "In the fourth step".
   - The use-case in section 3.4, seems to be an end to end use case whereas LMP is a link based protocol. Not sure if it is the correct solution for the problem presented.

 

Thanks,

Sidd

[CCAMP] comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp Siddharth Aanand