Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11

[Radhakrishna Valiveti <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe:

  Regarding your suggestion of creating a new section/subsection for the
potential future work, here is my view. I feel that there are only two
aspects mentioned in our draft that could involve future work: a) ability to
handle the full TPN space (i.e. 14-bit TPN) supported by the G.709-2020 b)
optimizing the label format to reduce the label size. I feel that a separate
section would make sense only if provide one or more options for addressing
these topics. In other words, just the listing the topics in a separate
section doesn't add much to the document. We could create a separate draft
when the time to address these future items comes. What do you think?

 

Regards,

radha

 

From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Radhakrishna Valiveti <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail];
[e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11

 

Thanks for the figure updates.  Any thoughts from the authors on splitting
out the potential future work into its own section?  I think it would add
clarity but perhaps not enough to justify the work.

 

Joe

 

On 9/29/22, 12:42, "Radhakrishna Valiveti" <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

Hi Joe:

  Thanks for your review of the B100G applicability draft. I have taken your


suggestions into account and uploaded v12 of our draft. Please let me know
if 

any additional edits are needed.

 

Regards,

radha

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Joe Clarke via Datatracker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 9:29 AM

To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 

Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; 

[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> ; 

[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 

Subject: Opsdir last call review of 

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click 

links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content 

is safe.

 

 

Reviewer: Joe Clarke

Review result: Has Nits

 

I have been tasked to review this document on behalf of the OPS DIR.  I 

wouldn't say I'm an expert in this area, but overall I found the draft easy
to 

read, and from an operations point of view I appreciate the succinct 

applicability summaries, as well as the points to future extensibility work 

(though I wonder if those deserve their own section for added clarity).

 

On the nits side, I notice you compare your Figure 3 with the figure in 

Section

3 of RFC7138.  However, you omit the notion of labeling the A, B, etc. with 

"OTN Switch", which I think would help.  I'm also not sure what "3R" means 

here or in Figure 1 (but that is likely my lack of experience here).
Finally, 

the two parts of Figure 3 seem to be showing both one-hop and multi-hop
OTUCn 

links but you do not call that out as is done in RFC7138.