Last Call comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-09.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 04 March 2015 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BB01A86F1; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:36:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jxETtXdm0gai; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 412891A86F0; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 07:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t24FaRSP011282; Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:36:27 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (089144208136.atnat0017.highway.a1.net [89.144.208.136]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t24FaOTq011269 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:36:26 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call comments draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-09.txt
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:36:26 -0000
Message-ID: <01a901d05690$fbd7d610$f3878230$@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: AdBWkOXLxWRmD6QESJqidViN5TqpLQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21374.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--18.794-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--18.794-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: w9zfuzRSqX0FCdq0JvYbZbxygpRxo469QPCWRE0Lo8IT+mPFbKfcuzMs wZYlrvM/FBgbG8iM+mKbav/jiowVgZhaM6UCMiPrNcoW2wO1ntMY0xNaH5MD2+O53bHtM9W31GS ScrEiuduH28JBgchGjnf0kerLhF+CRsguPuf6Q/6XA4Z4r9atc1p4YXccYb4AW/Kb+C9IfiLtpc ZVtwIwCPDMfDZIUN7o6eSjAOuwY7FZw9tpBKtKOr0dPFETpBAHUCwb19dUaUldkGb0OueF6j6eZ F5pe54zJBT31OF/jGq+U0mmfmqOrYLSdZH87Opgy18e5+drKgYZskwWqoib3CBs0OU9P6tb/eqo Ab5G2DTJLU6mvdknQUhxaJhuh0LPAE+5eBl91IOeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCpvI8UZOf47jUZxE AlFPo846HM5rqDwqtlExlQIQeRG0=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oG82X2sZcmXyRC8HG-nyQ5s32rU>
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:36:31 -0000

Hi,

Comments arising from my AD review and from discussion on the TEAS mailing list.
Please address these with other last call comments you receive.

You need to split the Authors' Addresses section and move out all those
not on the current front page to be present in a Contributors section.

---

You seem to have the name of RFC 6205 in the references section a bit
wrong!

---

Do you really mean that you are updating 6205? That is the document
that defines lambda labels.

It has no mention of G.709 despite what you say in the Abstract. This
seems a little odd.

What is more, I don't see any discussion of updates to the label format
or usage in the document although Section 4 does say

   [RFC6205] defines the label format as applicable to LSC capable
   device. This document extends [RFC6205] as make its label format
   applicable also to WSON-LSC capable devices.

I don't think that applying the label to WSON without changing its
meaning or the way it is used is really an "update".

---

Section 2 has FOADM, but it is not used in the document.

You need to hyphenate "Cross Connect" unless you are really angry :-)

---

Section 3 gives a caption to a list

    List 1. WSON Signal Characteristics

I've not seen that before in an I-D, and since you don't refer to the
list by name, I suggest you just delete this.

---

I wish you hadn't suggested explicit values for the two new Error Codes
in 4.2.2 and 6. But we'll see what IANA says during IETF last call.

---

During the review of draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro it was noted that rules
are needed about where in an ERO the sub-objects are allowed, and that these
rules are dependent on the TLVs included in the sub-objects.

The following text was suggested:

>  The WSON Processing HOP Attribute TLV with ResourceBlockInfo MUST be
> present after an explicit Hop addressing an TE Router ID identifying a
> specific node or a Link ID identifying an incoming TE link. it MUST NOT be
> present after a loose, abstract node, Link ID identifying an outgoing TE
> link, Component Interface ID or Label.
> 
> The WSON Processing HOP Attribute TLV with WavelengthSelection only MUST
> be present after an explicit Hop addressing an TE Router ID identifying a
> specific node,  a Link ID identifying an incoming TE link, loose hop,
> abstract node, Link ID identifying an outgoing TE lin or  Component
> Interface ID. it MUST NOT be present after a Label.
> 
> The WavelengthSelection may apply starting at an abstract node, but not
> after a label (as no selection is possible)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The
> IESG
> Sent: 04 March 2015 15:07
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-09.txt> (Signaling
Extensions
> for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks) to Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
> Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
> - 'Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks'
>   <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-09.txt> as Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-03-18.