Hi Italo: OK -- I understand the concern. My view is that we can leave the Figure 3 unchanged. I think the possibility of misunderstanding is more in the case of Figure 4. In Figure 4, I don't know if using the DXC/WXC/3R label for nodes B, C really clarifies things for the reader. Seeing the label "DXC" might lead people to have the same doubt, i.e. that the ODUCn signal is somehow switched at the electrical layer. I feel that edits to the figure alone will not be sufficient; we need to add some text to explain this detail. If it helps we can get on a quick call and decide on the combination of figure/text that clarifies things. Regards, radha -----Original Message----- From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 1:58 AM To: Radhakrishna Valiveti <rvaliveti@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Joe Clarke <jclarke@xxxxxxxxx>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11 Hi Radha, I have just noted that in the -12 revision the nodes A, B, C and D in Figure 3 have been renamed as OTN switch A, B, C and D in Figure 3 and Figure 4 However, I am afraid the new Figure 4 can be easily misunderstood as implying that OTN switch B and C are switching the ODUCn in the electrical layer which is not the case (that was the reason for the 3R note in the -11 version) What about replacing the term "switch" in Figure 3 and Figure 4 with the terms "DXC" and "WXC", as already used in Figure 1? Thanks, Italo > -----Original Message----- > From: Radhakrishna Valiveti <rvaliveti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: giovedì 29 settembre 2022 18:42 > To: Joe Clarke <jclarke@xxxxxxxxx>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g- > applicability.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Opsdir last call review of > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn- > b100g-applicability-11 > > 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; > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability.all@xxxxxxxx; > last-call@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. >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
