Re: [Last-Call] [CCAMP] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15
Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Wed, 14 February 2024 14:29 UTC
Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.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 E80BDC14CE3B; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 06:29:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xmp52JZSXW1U; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 06:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C3EDC14CE39; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 06:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4TZgTx1MzNz6K8lp; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:25:57 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.172]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81888141A22; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 22:29:23 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.172) by frapeml500007.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.172) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:29:23 +0100
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.172]) by frapeml500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.172]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.035; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:29:23 +0100
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15
Thread-Index: AQHZWQVlrgMmAfJWS0qQ0fVtEIEKzrEL4Ziw
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:29:23 +0000
Message-ID: <0f51ef78446948cbaf9363d4af1302fa@huawei.com>
References: <167908074101.34134.6024183201668946926@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <167908074101.34134.6024183201668946926@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.203.246.111]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/t3gkTXkvCun1kOfVw6yw7rUkFy4>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [CCAMP] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15
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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:29:28 -0000
Dear Michael, 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. Updates include: - Fixed text in section 4.2 fixed - Added a new clause 5 Again, thanks for the support and review. Authors, Haomian and Italo. > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> > Sent: venerdì 17 marzo 2023 20:19 > To: rtg-dir@ietf.org > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types.all@ietf.org; last- > call@ietf.org > Subject: [CCAMP] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15 > > Reviewer: Michael Richardson > Review result: Ready > > Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-1 draft-ietf- > ccamp-otn-topo-yang > > Hello > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of draft-ietf- > ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16.html and a last-call review of draft-ietf-ccamp- > layer1-types-1. > > I think that this is because the first document depends upon the second > document, and the second document is being advanced in order to be ready > for it to be included on other dochuments. > > The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, > perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to > the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s > lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review > depends on the stage that the document has reached. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please > see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > which should now be somewhere in the new wiki! > > Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15 > Reviewer: Michael Richardson > Review Date: 2023-03-17 > Intended Status: standards track > > Summary: > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be > considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. > > Comments: > > I found the document easy to read and understandable. > The last GPON stuff I did was in 2010, so I don't really know the details of the > technology anymore. > > The interspersing of text into the YANG-tree output is an interesting way to > do things. I was concerned as I read that this might mean that description in > the YANG itself might be weak, and I found this to be the case. I don't have a > good answer as to whether detailed text in the YANG module is better or > worse. > > Nits: > > Section 4.2 has some odd formatting for the definition list, which I'm sure > the RPC will clean up. > > > Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16 > Reviewer: Michael Richardson > Review Date: 2023-03-17 > Intended Status: standards track > > Summary: > > I found the document rather difficult to read. > While I had just read layer1-types, and there is a nice Figure 1, then I saw > section 3, and my eyes blurred. > > Comments: > > I don't think that the YANG Tree display adds anything to the document as is. > Maybe if it had a softer walk-through like in layer1-types it would be more > useful. > > I read the YANG, and it's among the most complex I have ever read. > > I didn't know augment took +, and there are too many dependancies for me > to > understand trivially what any of this code is doing. That doesn't mean it's > wrong, rather than it's unlikely that anyone who is not very very deeply > steeped in this content will be able to make any determination as to whether > it's correct. > > Nits: > > None that I saw. > > > >
- [Last-Call] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf… Michael Richardson via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] [CCAMP] Rtgdir last call review o… Italo Busi