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

[Radhakrishna Valiveti <[e-mail]>]

Hi Italo:
  OK -- I understand the concern. My view is that we can leave the Figure 3 unchanged. I think the possibility of misunderstanding is more in the case of Figure 4. In Figure 4, I don't know if using the DXC/WXC/3R label for nodes B, C really clarifies things for the reader. Seeing the label "DXC" might lead people to have the same doubt, i.e. that the ODUCn signal is somehow switched at the electrical layer. I feel that edits to the figure alone will not be sufficient; we need to add some text to explain this detail. If it helps we can get on a quick call and decide on the combination of figure/text that clarifies things.

Regards,
radha

-----Original Message-----
From: Italo Busi <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 1:58 AM
To: Radhakrishna Valiveti <[e-mail]>; Joe Clarke <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11

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.
>