Re: [Teas] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-11

["Hejia (Jia)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yi,

Thanks for taking care of my comments. I'm OK with the updates, which have addressed my concerns. Thanks!


B.R.
Jia




________________________________


发件人：Linyi (Yi) <[e-mail]>
收件人：Hejia (Jia) <[e-mail]>;rtg-dir <[e-mail]>
抄 送：draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work.all <[e-mail]>;'TEAS WG' <[e-mail]>
时 间：2023-07-26 02:53:51
主 题：Re: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-11


Thanks Jia for the review on the draft.



A new version (-12) has been submitted to try to solve all the issues. Please see:

URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-12.txt

Status:    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work/

Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work

Diff:      https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-12



Please all see the authors’ replies in-line with [Yi]. Thank you.







B.R.

Yi LIN



HUAWEI Technologies Co., Ltd.



Address: Huawei Industrial Base

Bantian Longgang

Shenzhen 518129, P.R.China

http://www.huawei.com

________________________________

This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which

is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the

information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial

disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended

recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender

by phone or email immediately and delete it!



-----邮件原件-----
发件人: He Jia via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
发送时间: 2023年7月3日 23:20
收件人: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
抄送: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-11



Reviewer: He Jia

Review result: Has Issues



Summary:



I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.



Comments:



1) Section 2.1 describes GMPLS control plane as a distributed control system.

"Controller" is used in this section as distributed on each node, while "controller" in most of the other places in this draft indicates a centralized controller. This may cause confusion. A GMPLS control plane instance is also used in this section to support the NE level control. It is suggested to align the terminologies and eliminate confusion.

[Yi] Changed the "controller" to "GMPLS control plane instance" in Section 2.1.



2) Section 2.3,  the logic of the two paragraphs under Figure 1 is not too clear. What does "Alternatively" in the second paragraph intend to substitute?

The first paragraph already describes domain 1 uses NETCONF/YANG and/or PCEP.

The second paragraph (starting with "Alternatively")  describes NETCONF again.

It is not an alternative but an enhanced descripion, is it? Besides, is the description of MDSC also the same in these two paragraphs?

[Yi] The paragraph stating with“alternatively” provides another method for the control of domain 2 and 3, comparing with the one in the previous paragraph (each domain has the GMPLS control plane enabled…to establish the corresponding LSP segment.). Both methods are only for Domain 2 and 3 which support GMPLS.

The authors suggest to put the two alternative methods as two parallel bullets, under the“For domain 2 and 3”, to avoid misunderstanding.



3) Section 5.1, is "Yang Path Computation requests [PAT-COMP]" the only way for controller interaction in case of path computation?

[Yi] PCEP can be another option for path computation. Please see the change below:

s/ the controller can interact with other controllers by sending Yang Path Computation requests [PAT-COMP] to compute a set of potential optimal paths/ the controller can interact with other controllers by sending, for example, Yang Path Computation requests [PAT-COMP] or PCEP, to compute a set of potential optimal paths



Nits:



1) Section 4.3, s/notification that permits to notify the client about topology changes/notification of topology changes to the client

[Yi] OK.



2) Section 5.1, s/service e2e path setup/e2e service path setup

[Yi] OK.



3) Section 5.2, TED lacks of an expanded explanation, although the explanation appears later in Section 5.3.

s/TED/ Traffic Engineering Database (TED) in Section 5.2

[Yi] OK. And therefore the expanded explanation of TED in Section 5.3 was deleted.



4) Section 7.1, s/The topology on network element/The topology on a network element

[Yi] OK.



5) Section 7.3.3, the first paragraph, s/the detail extensions/the detailed extensions

[Yi] OK.



6) Section 7.4.3, the last paragraph, s/could be taken place/could take place

[Yi] OK.



7) Section 7.4.4, the fourth paragraph, s/failure occurs.../failure that occurs...

[Yi] OK.



8) Section 9, s/The security requirements in both system still applies/The security requirements in both systems still apply

[Yi] OK.