Hi Radha, Italo, Sorry for late reponse, I'm just back from the business trip, and thanks for all your help these days when I was busy. I agree that the "switch" brings confusion in the context. I also agree that changing the "switch" to "DXC/WXC/3R" may not help. What I suggest is: 1, Using the "switch" and "DXC/WXC/3R" consistently in the draft, suggest we change Figure 3 and Figure 4 to align with Figure 1, i.e., to represent "switch" with "DXC/WXC". 2, My understanding on the use of the words "switch" and "DXC/WXC/3R" in the draft is they are used to represent physical OTN equipments. The OTN equipments could support switching at ODUk layers, but not at ODUCn/OTUCn layer. If this understanding is correct, I think some texts could be added to the being of section 3 as the second paragraph to explain what DXC/WXC means. Here is the texts I suggest, please update it if you think it's incomplete. "The DXC and WXC are used to represent the physical OTN equipments which could support the ODUk and ODUCn. The ODUk supports the switching capability, whereas ODUCn does not support." Thanks Qilei ------------------Original------------------ From: RadhakrishnaValiveti <rvaliveti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@xxxxxxxxxx>;Joe Clarke <jclarke@xxxxxxxxx>;ops-dir@xxxxxxxx <ops-dir@xxxxxxxx>; Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx <ccamp@xxxxxxxx>;draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability.all@xxxxxxxx>;last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>; Date: 2022年10月05日 00:49 Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11 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. > _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
