Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04
review-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04-genart-lc-sparks-2015-09-02-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2015-09-09 | |
Requested | 2015-08-27 | |
Authors | Adrian Farrel , Daniel King , Yao Li , Fatai Zhang | |
I-D last updated | 2015-09-02 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Robert Sparks Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Paul Wouters (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Carlos Pignataro (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2015-09-02 |
review-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-04-genart-lc-sparks-2015-09-02-00
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.