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

["Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[e-mail]>]

Given the timing of when the work might be needed that is probably fine.  Moreover, your point about not having a potential solution is well taken.

Joe

PGP Key : https://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc

On Sep 29, 2022, at 18:29, Radhakrishna Valiveti <[e-mail]> wrote:


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.