RE: [CCAMP] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05

"Yemin (Amy)" <> Mon, 14 May 2018 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AB812AF83; Sun, 13 May 2018 23:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.19
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u_cRLbTK1t5c; Sun, 13 May 2018 23:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 435321200A0; Sun, 13 May 2018 23:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4F0477E53B867; Mon, 14 May 2018 07:10:11 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Mon, 14 May 2018 07:10:12 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Mon, 14 May 2018 14:10:03 +0800
From: "Yemin (Amy)" <>
To: Linda Dunbar <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05
Thread-Index: AQHT6ybee8Mp83ujbEWaVt8SdiFhUKQuvIHg
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 06:10:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCF003AACdggema521mbschi_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 06:10:19 -0000

Hi Linda,

Thanks for your review.

Please see my reply inline below.

We will soon update the draft to address the comments.



-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 9:57 AM
Subject: [CCAMP] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05

Reviewer: Linda Dunbar

Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05

Reviewer: Linda Dunbar

Review Date: 2018-05-13

IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-20

IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-24


IETF LC End Date: N/A

IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-

Summary:  with a potential issue.

Page11, Section 4.5:

Missing signal degradation or partial fault management. Radio link is heavily impacted by weather. Rain/cloud can make a radio link lose up to 50% of its capacity. Therefore, it will be quite useful to report the effective bandwidth of the radio link.
[Amy] Yes, the bandwidth of the radio link is a very important characteristic. We put the bandwidth in the mw topology model, not in the interface model, just following the way in generic TE topology model.
Originally, this framework is for interface model only, therefore it doesn’t address the bandwidth. We could update the framework to address your comments.

Some questions:

Page 6: Can one Radio Link be shared by multiple Carrier Terminations?  If yes, are those multiple Carrier Terminations terminated at one physical device?
[Amy] Yes and yes.  The figure below (from draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang) is for your reference.


Page 7: do you mean “key goal or key purpose of this work” in the following sentence? “The adoption of an SDN framework for management and control the microwave interface is one of the key applications for this work.”

[Amy] Yes, your wording is much better, will use it.

Page 10, Section 4.1.2: What does “over the hop” mean in the first sentence?

Isn’t it same as “… establish L1 connectivity to an associated radio link…”?
[Amy] Please see the figure above, normally we call the near end node and far end node as a hop.  Here “over the hop” can be moved to the end of the sentences, or completely removed.

Major issues:  N/A

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

Best Regards, Linda Dunbar


CCAMP mailing list<>