Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11
review-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11-opsdir-lc-clarke-2022-09-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2022-10-06
Requested 2022-09-22
Authors Qilei Wang , Radha Valiveti , Haomian Zheng , Huub van Helvoort , Sergio Belotti
I-D last updated 2022-09-28
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -11 by Susan Hares (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -14 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -15 by Joe Clarke
Assignment Reviewer Joe Clarke
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/Ixv0YkliGqBewUSXvF8A0iiAaiI
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 15)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-09-28
review-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-otn-b100g-applicability-11-opsdir-lc-clarke-2022-09-28-00
I have been tasked to review this document on behalf of the OPS DIR.  I
wouldn't say I'm an expert in this area, but overall I found the draft easy to
read, and from an operations point of view I appreciate the succinct
applicability summaries, as well as the points to future extensibility work
(though I wonder if those deserve their own section for added clarity).

On the nits side, I notice you compare your Figure 3 with the figure in Section
3 of RFC7138.  However, you omit the notion of labeling the A, B, etc. with
"OTN Switch", which I think would help.  I'm also not sure what "3R" means here
or in Figure 1 (but that is likely my lack of experience here).  Finally, the
two parts of Figure 3 seem to be showing both one-hop and multi-hop OTUCn links
but you do not call that out as is done in RFC7138.