Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk-06
Requested revision 06 (document currently at 13)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-07-28
Requested 2017-07-04
Requested by Daniele Ceccarelli
Authors Ruediger Kunze , Gert Grammel , Dieter Beller , Gabriele Galimberti , Julien Meuric
I-D last updated 2017-08-07
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Keyur Patel (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -09 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
The draft is WG since a while but we'd appreciate a QA review before the last call. I guess Routing Area Directorate is the most appropriate? Other suggestions are more than welcome.
Assignment Reviewer Keyur Patel
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 13)
Result Has nits
Completed 2017-08-07
Reviewer: Keyur Patel
Review result: Has Nits

Document: draft-item-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk
Reviewer: Keyur Patel
Review Date: August 7, 2017
Intended Status: Informational Track

Here are my comments.

Overall, the document is well organized and clear about the problem statement
and requirements for the framework for Management and Control of DWDM optical
interface. This document could simplify early draft sections text and fix few
typos + grammatical errors.

Attached are my comments:

1 - Section 1, Consider replacing: "Carriers deploy their networks today based
on transport und packet" with "Carriers deploy their networks today based on
transport and packet".

2 - Section 1, Last Paragraph, consider replacing: "Optical routing and
wavelength assignment based on WSON is out of scope although can benefit of the
way the optical parameters are exchanged between the Client and the DWDM
Network." with: "Although Optical routing and wavelength assignment based on
WSON is out of scope, they can benefit from the optical parameters that are
exchanged between the Client and the DWDM Network."

3 - Section 2, first Paragraph, consider replacing: "The DWDM interfaces
migration…" with "The DWDM interface migration..."

4 - Section 2, fifth Paragraph: "Administrative domain [G.805]: For the
purposes of this Recommendation"
   Perhaps the authors meant "this document" as oppose to "this Recommendation"?

5 - Section 3.1.2 last Paragraph: "The following documents[DWDM-interface-MIB],
[YANG], [LMP] define such a protocol- FIX-THE-REFERENCE specific information
using SNMP SMI, Yang models and LMP TLV to support the direct exchange of
information between the client and the network management and control plane."

Does this also apply to Section 3.1.1 or it is specific to Section 3.1.2? If
so, it should be moved out of Section 3.1.2.

6 - Section 4.1.2, third Paragraph and 5.1: LMP uses reliable UDP.  For any
Indirect and Direct connections, how does the optical network node recover from
partial network configurations upon LMP based adjacency failures? Does that
need to be a requirement for LMP extensions?

7 - Section 5.2.1: The alarms that can be generated for use cases mentioned in
5.2.1 can be chatty particularly when sending over LMP (or protocol of choice).
Is there a requirement to pace/damp the rate of Alarms (that would be carried
within LMP)?