|
Hi Adrian, I am updating this draft, but one issue is about the new small section.
You said “adding a small section including all of the statements you made in your email”,
but I really don’t know which kind of section should be added to cover various aspects including management tools, OAM, alarm, MIB, etc.
I also suspect the value to have this kind of new section to talk about something (and nothing new), which may not be related to the subject of this draft (ie., RSVP-TE extensions for OTN *connection*
establishment). Therefore, I would like to hear more from you. Could you give a title for this new section?
Best Regards Fatai From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Fatai, I think you nicely answered your own questions :-) I would suggest adding a small section including all of the statements you made in your email. (Well, no need to refer to Berlin and the CCAMP chairs :-) Cheers, Adrian From: Fatai Zhang [mailto:zhangfatai@xxxxxxxxxx]
Hi Adrian, Thanks very much. I can update the nits and editorial issues quickly, but I would like to discuss more with you for the following points to make things clear before I update the draft.
========================================================================================= Please consider and note what updates to GMPLS management tools are needed. [Fatai]This has been mentioned in [Framework] document. Did you mean that we need add one sentence in some place of this document to refer to [Framework] document to mention management tools? Are there any changes to the Alarms that might arise? We have a document for that. [Fatai] No. RFC4783 is still applicable. Are there any changes to the way OAM is controlled? We have a document for that. [Fatai] No, it could be done through NMS or [draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-sdh-otn-oam-ext]. Should the new G-PIDs show in the TC MIB managed by IANA at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib.xhtml This should happen automgically when the feeding registries are updated but it is probably best to add a specific request for IANA. [Fatai] Will do that. Will other MIB work be needed (in the future) to make it possible to
read new information (labels, tspecs) from network devices? [Fatai] I am not sure. I asked the similar question (not on this draft) during Berlin meeting. The chairs answered that it could be driven by drafts. Best Regards Fatai -----Original Message----- As sponsoring AD I have the following last call comments I hope you will take on board. Thanks, Adrian Please fix the two lines that are too long (see idnits) --- Please expand "OTN" on first use in the main text. Please expand "TS" on its first use. --- 6.2 The ingress node of an LSP MAY include Label ERO (Explicit Route
Object) to indicate the label in each hops along the path. Missing "subobject". --- 6.2.1 When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an
GENERALIZED_LABEL object s/an/a/ --- Please consider and note what updates to GMPLS management tools are needed. Are there any changes to the Alarms that might arise? We have a document for that. Are there any changes to the way OAM is controlled? We have a document for that. Should the new G-PIDs show in the TC MIB managed by IANA at https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianagmplstc-mib/ianagmplstc-mib.xhtml This should happen automgically when the feeding registries are updated but it is probably best to add a specific request for IANA. Will other MIB work be needed (in the future) to make it possible to
read new information (labels, tspecs) from network devices? --- Please fix so that you have three sections: Authors' Addresses (only those people on the front page) Contributors (other people who made significant text contributions to the document) Acknowledgements (other people who helped with the work) --- [OTN-OSPF] should be a normative reference for its use to define the
value of the switching type used in signaling. _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp |