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

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Radha,

I have just noted that in the -12 revision the nodes A, B, C and D in Figure 3 have been renamed as OTN switch A, B, C and D in Figure 3 and Figure 4

However, I am afraid the new Figure 4 can be easily misunderstood as implying that OTN switch B and C are switching the ODUCn in the electrical layer which is not the case (that was the reason for the 3R note in the -11 version)

What about replacing the term "switch" in Figure 3 and Figure 4 with the terms "DXC" and "WXC", as already used in Figure 1?

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radhakrishna Valiveti <[e-mail]>
> Sent: giovedì 29 settembre 2022 18:42
> To: Joe Clarke <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-
> b100g-applicability-11
> 
> 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]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 9:29 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail];
> [e-mail];
> [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.
>