I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 14 Sep 2015
IETF LC End Date: past
IESG Telechat date: 17 Sep 2015
Summary: (still) Ready for publication as Proposed Standard
Thanks for the improvements in -05.
On 9/2/15 3:04 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2 Sep 2015
IETF LC End Date: 9 Sep 2015
IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled for a telechat
Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
One thing I'd like to check, and I suspect this pokes at a
conversation that has already happened (as hinted in the
acknowledgements section):
The discussion of managements systems having to deal with a 64 bit
wavelength label caught my eye. This is an RFC3471 section 3.2.1.1
label isn't it? That document shows wavelength labels as 32 bit
things. Has something updated 3471 to say to expect a multiple of 32
bits, and not 32 bits specifically? If not, maybe this document would
be a good place to do so explicitly, rather than what appears to be
fiat at the moment?
micro-nit: at the end of the introduction "in that regard" suggests
the document updates the work of the ITU-T in some other regard? I
suggest simple deleting the phrase.