|
Thanks for the figure updates. Any thoughts from the authors on splitting out the potential future work into its own section? I think it would add clarity but perhaps not enough to justify the work. Joe
On 9/29/22, 12:42, "Radhakrishna Valiveti" <rvaliveti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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 <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 9:29 AM To:
ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc:
ccamp@xxxxxxxx; 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. |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
