Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-01-26
Requested 2015-01-02
Authors Jianrui Han , Greg M. Bernstein , Young Lee , Dan Li , Wataru Imajuku
I-D last updated 2015-01-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -19 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Warren "Ace" Kumari (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -16 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tomonori Takeda
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16-rtgdir-early-takeda-2015-01-26
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 20)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2015-01-26

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ‚Äč

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: 17 January, 2015
IETF LC End Date: 17 January, 2015
Intended Status: Standards Track


This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be
considered prior to publication.


This document specifies protocol-agnostic encodings for general information
elements described in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info. I think the document is in
good shape but there are a few points that should be clarified for better

Major Issues:


Minor Issues:



1) In section 1.2, label continuity constraint (e.g., wavelength continuity in
WSON) is mentioned. However, I am not sure whether information elements for
which this document specifies encodings can describe such constraint. My
reading is that information element such as Port Label Restriction is rather
for describing wavelength tuning capabilities/restrictions.

2) In section 2.1, it says "two matrices will not have the same {src port, src
label, dst port, dst label}". To be precise, I guess this should be "two
matrices will not have the same {src port, src label}, and two matrices will
not have the same {dst port, dst label}"?

3) In section 2.1, it says "The value of 0xFF is reserved for use with port
wavelength constraints". I think "port wavelength constraints" should be "port
label restriction".

4) In section 2.1, for Link Set A dir=bidirectional, Link Set B
dir=bidirectional, if any signal on an input link X is output on a link Y, then
any signal on an input link Y is output on a link X (after cross-connect)? Or
any constraint on such signal flow (after cross-connect) is out of scope?

5) In section 2.2.1, it says "In this case the accompanying label set indicates
the labels permitted on the port." I think "port" should be "port/matrix".

6) In section 2.2.2, it would be better to describe the type (e.g., integer)
for MaxNumChannels. This also applies for MaxLabelRange (in section 2.2.3) and
Num Labels (in section 2.6).

7) In section 2.6, it says "Label Set Field is used within the
<AvailableLabels> or the <SharedBackupLabels>". But I think Label Set Field is