Early Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16
review-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16-rtgdir-early-takeda-2015-01-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
Requested rev. 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 Bernstein, Young Lee, Dan Li, Wataru Imajuku
Draft 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 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
Review review-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16-rtgdir-early-takeda-2015-01-26
Reviewed rev. 16 (document currently at 20)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-01-26

Review
review-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16-rtgdir-early-takeda-2015-01-26

Hello, 

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

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

 

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

Summary:

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

Comments:

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 understanding.

Major Issues:

None

Minor Issues:

None

Nits:

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 also used within SIMPLE_LABEL, LABEL_RANGE and SIMPLE_LABEL & CHANNEL_COUNT.


Thanks,
Tomonori