Evaluation of Existing GMPLS Encoding against G.709v3 Optical Transport Networks (OTNs)
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-13

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-22 for -12)
No email
send info
Figure 7 addresses the scenario in which the restoration of the ODU2

I think you mean  Figure 10

ISCD + IACD need expansion

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

Comment (2013-10-22 for -12)
No email
send info
I did have one comment, which you might consider along with any other feedback you receive during IESG evaluation.

In section 3.2.  Control Plane considerations

   What is shown in the example is that the TS granularity processing is
   a per layer issue: even if the ODU3 H-LSP is created with TS
   granularity client at 2.5Gbps, the ODU2 H-LSP must guarantee a
   1.25Gbps TS granularity client.  

I don't understand what "must guarantee a client" means here. Is that a term of art in optical networking? I'm guessing this is saying something like "must guarantee support for a client", but I'm guessing.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-23 for -12)
No email
send info
I have a question regarding this document. I am not making it a DISCUSS because (a) my availability to have a DISCUSSion this week and next is limited and (b) even if the answer to this question is the worst imaginable, I'm not convinced we should hold up publication to DISCUSS it:

What charter item for CCAMP does this document fulfill? I can't figure out what major output of the WG this document is intended to advance, and I don't even see a milestone for this item in the milestone list. Is this supposed to be input to some other document? Neither the intro nor the abstract make this obvious.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2013-10-23 for -12)
No email
send info
Warren's secdir review seemed to have some useful editor comments.  Please consider them.