[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11

Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 22 September 2022 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD306C14CF04; Thu, 22 Sep 2022 16:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.17.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <166388950176.61935.14696748164014645198@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 16:31:41 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/iGk_L6Q-jsTDTKxHie24YSsIcxk>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 23:31:41 -0000

Reviewer: Susan Hares
Review result: Ready

This is a rtg-directorate review.  As such it should be seen as another
external review on this document.

Status: ready
Additional nits: none
Comments: Document is technically complete pointing to the key IETF RFC
references (RFC7138, RFC7139). The ITU-T_G709_2020 document is outside of my
expertise, but on the references match my understanding at a product level.

The security considerations seem appropriate as this document simply extends
the similar mapping functionality.

This document was a easy read.  Kudos go to the authors, the CCAMP WG, and the
CCAM chairs.