Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-01-05
Requested 2013-12-18
Authors Attila Takacs, Don Fedyk, He Jia
Draft last updated 2014-01-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by David Black (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by David Black (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Magnus Nystrom (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Warren Kumari (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Warren Kumari 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-11-opsdir-lc-kumari-2014-01-09
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 13)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2014-01-09


I have reviewed this document as part of the operations directorate's

ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the

IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the

operations area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat

these comments just like any other last call comments.

Summary: LGTM.

Reviewed Version:

GMPLS RSVP-TE extensions for OAM Configuration


This Standards Track document specifies 

extensions to RSVP-TE to support the establishment and configuration of OAM along with the LSP signaling.

Implementation of this mechanism should increase the deployment of OAM when creating LSPs using GMPLS (folk often "forget" the management / monitoring)  and decrease the number of errors.

Some Nits: 

Section 2:

O: In IETF, the GMPLS controlled Ethernet ...

P: In the IETF, the GMPLS controlled Ethernet ...

O: GMPLS based OAM configuration and control, needs to provide a general

P: GMPLS based OAM configuration and control needs to provide a general

C: Extra comma.

O: Without control plane support, separate management...

P: Without control plane support separate management...

C: As above.

Checklist type stuff:


The solution scales well from the operational and management perspective.

The proposed approach does not have scaling issues that could affect usability for large-scale operation -- instead it is (IMO) well suited for large scales.

A.1.2: Has installation and initial setup been discussed?


A.1.3.  Has the migration path been discussed? 

Yes - coexistance / backwards compatibility is discussed.


5.  Has the impact on network operation been discussed?

Yup. That's kinda the whole point of this :-) 

No real additional load.


6.  Have suggestions for verifying correct operation been discussed?

Not really. I don't really see how they could be though.


Do you anticipate any manageability issues with the specification?


A.3.  Documentation

Is an operational considerations and/or manageability section part of

the document?

Not a separate one -- but the whole doc covers it.

Does the proposed protocol have a significant operational impact on the Internet?

Yup.... but in a good way :-)