Re: [Last-Call] [CCAMP] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16
Dirk Hugo <dirkvhugo@gmail.com> Fri, 16 February 2024 08:55 UTC
Return-Path: <dirkvhugo@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A89C151556; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:55:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HWOit-cnBzyx; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com (mail-ed1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65588C15154E; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-563cc707c7cso1934957a12.1; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:55:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708073707; x=1708678507; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=afAbQnVRtK/Vj4a0s8i/aNDHkUzlkSZaHIXQYNNYWFU=; b=mbvGZzdytj4joVVqFVhbF9xeA8ymzhSdnc11kUFrW7lQ26J2ncipc1QkKf9c0ICF44 Xkuln9q1EQx+3E8JaEUf61n63FOy1AvjQJXj+0YJ+DkDgqc8lSdy2YlXhjrSgVYY4z1S wT/VLRzoU7h4e2C6wsTCE1GhlYs/XP1jvpP8jfMYYbgjvCICbyC/XGDRdHYIOojwFQYA JADHTayzs4DT+Cbb4bgtY745Txu8eVb1Ndk9U6X5WyZKE+J75W4yGhXJIW10eT1dY8le UYS4Kua1KOyhfYfo6WecTwBt61jIXcQJKFZKPPACEEVV7JBA+1vhOxsQjapafbeEoyEg vTVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708073707; x=1708678507; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=afAbQnVRtK/Vj4a0s8i/aNDHkUzlkSZaHIXQYNNYWFU=; b=dGTw7qNopNG4YHDRUOHXwySLrCGyiXE7bb0egpVERSb3Aggxo/Bwxt/8dOGoIgwv4j erZQrHCHn1Ylvpl+pHnHw5cm8XHPQUmgbzWo0xD7kL1o51Cu3WNgYTOId0K7bwxVeq1Z 9DVdMcMmEUgJaJFt8+GoAR2459U9dVlRvIy4fj8EoPwLbcePjWicLejieg/SWljtLxUN gizZW6vJ1/khE0ZYwgj2FTDQ9lwMlPqcPzFLpWTwJmeL6XNvLs71AfPlF4u41JDiVxHd Y2AqaQzOBneE0gajTghodU4QFZi5X+x/OKOssjE3GHaJXCqaiLf/mPAuD7vvTKMFzt/H uwSw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWIxtSNIVsxTr8w14Bb1WhVwaJVoR3XrF2BNQ63uNomYrr8ubiZLewqlhnYzpZDiiC5Py2jizQWjs51JCeQ5SBmnjuhREMuDslbpWCasCWzic+ZhbWReP+Z7iRT7GhPbTSPPHZVvsDpTX/JV6poEfFz6t9WYL+3e8TOI8Yn6RM=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxxlqTIC4cIjW+T5Mk4D84PGrl2qblj/VIwaoSLjfiM+nuLSyOz 8JMN5kcvPDlHhzWLpjHKF/2BAcGYesBzO2UIgXvQurc7EFIXvOCcwa+tuQnLetGrp4YCneA1C7U xMjYC5vQjrBNSpktDtstBYjTyx5U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGmGu9z7LhKTiz3AF5+O7sBPCqAznx2Z1Rxg6aqZkRxNEoRWbxiZbyUhfOvJmP6tl9SJ2cgYOl3q8YYdgJ1mig=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:9e05:0:b0:563:eda5:2201 with SMTP id z5-20020a509e05000000b00563eda52201mr863764ede.13.1708073706521; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 00:55:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <170216192726.62026.1027791353942329743@ietfa.amsl.com> <33f1d305a9d44c57b2bf9b7bd814ca75@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <33f1d305a9d44c57b2bf9b7bd814ca75@huawei.com>
From: Dirk Hugo <dirkvhugo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:54:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJBtGrsArz9D4LGs2Az0aVgfkfBw7qJHiBCzUh1CK9nDUf3V4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
Cc: int-dir@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000087082206117be6d4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/4zn96z7B5oJP63Fys43aGvMTfLI>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [CCAMP] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 08:55:09 -0000
Okay, thanks for that! I am fine with your adaptions. Best regards Dirk On Wed, Feb 14, 2024, 2:31 PM Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> wrote: > Dear Dirk, > > Thank you for the review, the authors have updated the document to address > your comments and posted the updated document as > draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-17. > > For clarity we have included the proposed resolution for each issue > identified in the text below [Haomian & Italo]. > > Again, thanks for the support and review. > > Authors, Haomian and Italo. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dirk Von Hugo via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> > > Sent: sabato 9 dicembre 2023 23:45 > > To: int-dir@ietf.org > > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types.all@ietf.org; last- > > call@ietf.org > > Subject: [CCAMP] Intdir telechat review of > draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16 > > > > Reviewer: Dirk Von Hugo > > Review result: Ready with Nits > > > > I have reviewed this document as part of the INT area directorate's > ongoing > > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet area > > directors. > > Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any > > other last call comments. > > > > The summary of the review is 'Ready with nits'. > > > > General comment on the title 'A YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types' is > that > > the draft addresses specifically Layer 1 optical networks - a fact which > may > > be referred to also in the title. As I am neither an expert in YANG nor > in > > optical networks I cannot comment on those technical issues but hope that > > has been already discussed elsewhere. In addition to other reviews as the > > Gen-ART review by Dale > > ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-genart- > > lc-worley-2023-11-16/) > > I found further minor nits to be corrected/clarified before publication: > > > > p.1: > > topology, tunnel, client signal adaptation and service => topology, > tunnel, > > client signal adaptation, and service > > > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > p.2: > > data types, groupings and identities => data types, groupings, and > identities > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > Optical Transport Networking, => Optical Transport Networking (OTN), > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > > > p.3: > > groupings, typedef and identities, => groupings, typedef, and identities, > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > Layer 1 TE types (i.e. typedef, => Layer 1 TE types (i.e., typedef, > specified in > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > ietf-te-types in [I-D.ietf-teas-rfc8776-update] => specified as > ietf-te-types in > > [I-D.ietf-teas-rfc8776-update] > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > > > p.4: > > specified in ietf-layer1-types in this document. => specified as > ietf-layer1- > > types in this document. > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > > > p.7: > > a label-end, a label-step and a range-bitmap. => a label-end, a > label-step, and > > a range-bitmap. > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > TPN assignment rules depends => PN assignment rules > > depend OR PN assignment rule depends > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated as "TPN assignment rules depend" > > > [ITU-T_G.709], defines six types of > > ODUflex: > > ODUflex(CBR), ODUflex(GFP), ODUflex(GFP,n,k), ODUflex(IMP), > > ODUflex(IMP,s) and => [ITU-T_G.709] defines six types of ODUflex: > > ODUflex(CBR), ODUflex(GFP), ODUflex(GFP,n,k), ODUflex(IMP), > > ODUflex(IMP,s), and > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > > > p.9: > > to defines the value of s=5 x n => to define the value of s=5 x n is > defined in > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > section 12.2.6 => is defined in Section 12.2.6 > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > Section 5.1 and 5.2 of [RFC7139] > > defines => Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of [RFC7139] > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree. Text updated. > > > define an ODUflex LSPs => an > > ODUflex LSP OR ODUflex LSPs [if I didn't misunderstand the sentence] > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree, but we adjusted the text updated. > > > the > > OTN LTPs [meaning of LTP neither defined here nor in RFC 7062] > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree, but we adjusted the text updated. > > > the rules > > defined any other ODUflex type => the rules defined for any other ODUflex > > type > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree, but we adjusted the text updated. > > > > > p.10: > > LSP does or does support => LSP does or does not support > > > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree, but we adjusted the text updated. > > > p.45: > > is reportd for => is reported for > > > > [Haomian & Italo] Agree, but we adjusted the text updated. > > > Thanks for the work and best regards > > Dirk > > > > > >
- [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-… Dirk Von Hugo via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] [CCAMP] Intdir telechat review of… Italo Busi
- Re: [Last-Call] [CCAMP] Intdir telechat review of… Dirk Hugo