Hi Jouni,

Thanks very much for the comments. I fixed the nits in the draft. 

Regarding the Switching Capability-specific information field, we had the 
discussion in WG, and here's the summary/conclusion:
It's decided that this document will just define the availability TLV, and a 
new draft will define its technology specific usage.  
For example, for the SCSI which supports TLV(e.g., OTN/WSON), a new type code 
is needed to make use of availability TLV. 
For the SCSI who doesn’t support TLV(e.g., PSC), a new SC types is needed. 


-----Original Message-----
From: jouni.nospam [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 5:50 AM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension....@ietf.org
Subject: Gen-ATR review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team 
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF 
Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-07
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date:        2016-10-16
IETF LC End Date:   2016-10-24
IESG Telechat date: 2016-11-03


Document is ready with nits.

Major issues:


Minor issues:

It is not clear to me how the ISCD Availability sub-TLV is encoded into RFC4203 
Switching Capability-specific information field. This is because RFC4203 lists 
specific encodings depending on “Switching Cap” field and those encoded 
information fields seem not to be TLVs. I would like to see some text that 
deals with switching cap, its relation to the TLV described in this document 
and the coexistence with existing capability specific information fields 
described in RFC4203. If I did not understand something regarding the encoding 
that is supposed to be trivial I am happy to told that ;)

Nits/editorial comments:

o Line 21: ISCD is not expanded.
o Line 142: unnecessary extra space in "a < availability”.
o Line 150: Space needed before the reference "protocol[ETPAI].”
o Line 142-.. TE is never expanded or part of the list acronyms.
o Lines 176-178: formatting issue with indentation, line spacing  and
  line endings (not a fullstop but ‘;’).
o Line 162: TLV is never expanded or  part of the list acronyms.

Gen-art mailing list

Reply via email to