Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 25 June 2013 18:10 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7765621F9A71 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O+pfH9GDguMR for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy12-pub.bluehost.com [50.87.16.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CEA8F21F9C74 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3243 invoked by uid 0); 25 Jun 2013 18:10:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy12.bluehost.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2013 18:10:06 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=WEuetBYUnEBimSI6vPo5KSlWTCNwWy/Wxq1tDUkoxjc=; b=wFLgydk+lKffOvYw6eennEnVVg04hhhTbrNcTKVKDwpVOky7Ire/m6PRrkkvi3chX//1/eAAEHcSUurrnLm2QjbolTeoemiiBzLJWFexUd2hAuGDDDBOQ6dFSps19gCT;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:36729 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UrXgr-0001VT-Mt; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:10:05 -0600
Message-ID: <51C9DD01.2030605@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:10:09 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480EEBF7@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480EEBF7@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:10:34 -0000
Daniele, Please see below. I trimmed the text down a bit, let me know if I missed any discussion points. On 6/25/2013 5:59 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: > Hi Lou, > > All comments addressed. Some comments in line below. > Much thanks: The following nits will need to be fixed in the next rev (and before going to the IESG) == Missing Reference: 'RFC5226' is mentioned on line 1162, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC4202' is defined on line 1237, but no explicit reference was found in the text > BR > Daniele > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >> Sent: venerdì 14 giugno 2013 22.32 >> To: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g709v3 (editorial only) >> >> Hi, >> The following are comments as part of my LC review of >> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-06. Note that I'm the document >> shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more information. >> >> Please see >> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft > -ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-06.txt >> for line numbers used in this message. ... >> Lines 192/3: >> "The TE-Link is referred to as OTUk-TE-Link." >> This term is used just once in the document. Suggest dropping it. >> > > OK still TBD. > >> Lines 193/4: >> Doesn't the TE link for an OTUk physical Link always provide ODUk >> capacity? Either way this text needs to be fixed/clarified. > > What about dropping all of this text: > The TE-Link is > 193 referred to as OTUk-TE-Link. The OTUk-TE-Link advertises ODUj > 194 switching capacity. The advertised capacity could include ODUk > 195 switching capacity. sure. ... >> >> Lines 210-212,221: >> ODUj vs ODUk. Isn't it the case that a multi hop TE link could >> represent either ODUj or ODUk resources? This isn't clear from the >> current text/usage of ODUj/k. >> > > > New text: > > It is possible to create TE-Links that span more than one hop by creating > FA between non-adjacent nodes. > As in the one hop case, these types of ODUk-TE-Links also advertise ODU switching > capacity. why not just align with the figure name and use "Multiple hop TE-Link" rather than introduce a new otherwise unused term "ODUk-TE-Links"? ... Thanks, Lou
- Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g70… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g70… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g70… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] 2nd WG Last Call comments on ospf-g70… Lou Berger