[CCAMP] Diet prescription for draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-15

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

WG, authors,

I did another review of draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-15 looking at possible area where to cut exceeding fat in the document.
I think it would have been great to cover also topics like WDM and network slicing, but this would have been against the directions to reduce the size of the document, moreover at a given point we need to define a scope of the work, otherwise we would keep on adding new items and never end it.

The document is not so big as it seems. Out of 91 pages only 47 are the real document (more than acceptable) and the rest is appendix.

During the review I also spotted some minor issues (mostly typos) that can be addressed at any time. Here they are with the cut/merge suggestions:





  *   Definition of domain: i would have used RFC7926 as reference and not RFC4655, but since the text is identical and RFC4655 comes first...probably is the right choice.

-         "Note - The three definitions above are currently in [TE-TUTORIAL<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-15.txt#ref-TE-TUTORIAL>] but it is expected that they will be moved to [TE-TUNNEL<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-15.txt#ref-TE-TUNNEL>].  When this

 happens, the reference will be updated and the [TE-TUTORIAL<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-15.txt#ref-TE-TUTORIAL>] reference will be downgraded to Informative." Te Tunnel and TE tunnel segment are now part of the TE-Tunnel. Since the TE-Tutorial expired a while ago I would add the definition of TE Tunnel Hand-off here and remove any reference to TE-Tutorial.

  *   Section 4.1 s/the MDSC control/the MDSC controls
  *   Section 4.2 s/different PNCs provides/ different PNCs provide
  *   4.3.2 and 4.3.4 could be merged into 4.3.4. just describing EVPL and saying that it works in the same way with EPL without VLAN tagging.
  *   4.4 again a meaningful example but which adds little compared with the previous one. Maybe in 4.3.4 you could describe EVPLs and add a couple of sentences saying if works also with EPLs and Multi-function access links and explain it in a couple of sentences.
  *   5.1.2 could be dropped adding a sentence in 5.1.1. saying that the same applies to domain 2 since it's black topology like domain 1.
  *   Sections 5.2.x - We have:
     *   5.2.1 ODU transit service
     *   5.2.2 EPL over odu service.
     *   5.2.3 other OTN client services
     *   5.2.4 EVPL

Like in sections 4.3.x we could merge 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4 and focus on EVPL. Then just say that the same applies to EPL and other OTN client service. Would it work?

Thanks
Daniele