Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16
review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-intdir-telechat-von-hugo-2023-12-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2023-12-11
Requested 2023-12-04
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Haomian Zheng , Italo Busi
I-D last updated 2023-12-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -16 by Dirk Von Hugo (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -04 by Robert Wilton (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -15 by Michael Richardson (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dirk Von Hugo
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/9-YivT6pRD5rJ5sDFbV3lrc8uhc
Reviewed revision 16 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-12-09
review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-intdir-telechat-von-hugo-2023-12-09-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the INT area directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

The summary of the review is 'Ready with nits'.

General comment on the title 'A YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types' is that the
draft addresses specifically Layer 1 optical networks - a fact which may be
referred to also in the title. As I am neither an expert in YANG nor in optical
networks I cannot comment on those technical issues but hope that has been
already discussed elsewhere. In addition to other reviews as the Gen-ART review
by Dale
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-genart-lc-worley-2023-11-16/)
I found further minor nits to be corrected/clarified before publication:

p.1:
topology, tunnel, client signal adaptation and service => topology, tunnel,
client signal adaptation, and service

p.2:
data types, groupings and identities => data types, groupings, and identities
Optical Transport Networking, => Optical Transport Networking (OTN),

p.3:
groupings, typedef and identities, => groupings, typedef, and identities,
Layer 1 TE types (i.e. typedef, => Layer 1 TE types (i.e., typedef,
specified in ietf-te-types in [I-D.ietf-teas-rfc8776-update] => specified as
ietf-te-types in [I-D.ietf-teas-rfc8776-update]

p.4:
specified in ietf-layer1-types in this document. => specified as
ietf-layer1-types in this document.

p.7:
a label-end, a label-step and a range-bitmap. => a label-end, a label-step, and
a range-bitmap. TPN assignment rules depends => PN assignment rules depend OR
PN assignment rule depends [ITU-T_G.709], defines six types of ODUflex:
ODUflex(CBR), ODUflex(GFP), ODUflex(GFP,n,k), ODUflex(IMP), ODUflex(IMP,s) and
=> [ITU-T_G.709] defines six types of ODUflex: ODUflex(CBR), ODUflex(GFP),
ODUflex(GFP,n,k), ODUflex(IMP), ODUflex(IMP,s), and

p.9:
to defines the value of s=5 x n => to define the value of s=5 x n
is defined in section 12.2.6 => is defined in Section 12.2.6
Section 5.1 and 5.2 of [RFC7139] defines => Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of [RFC7139]
define an ODUflex LSPs => an ODUflex LSP OR ODUflex LSPs [if I didn't
misunderstand the sentence] the OTN LTPs [meaning of LTP neither defined here
nor in RFC 7062] the rules defined any other ODUflex type => the rules defined
for any other ODUflex type

p.10:
LSP does or does support => LSP does or does not support

p.45:
is reportd for => is reported for

Thanks for the work and best regards
Dirk