Subject: [CCAMP] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-08

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:24:06 -0800

Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready with Nits

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-08
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-02-10
IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-31
IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-16

Summary: Ready with Nits

A couple of nits that I mentioned in my earlier review that you might
want to address, but none of them are essential. (You may have decided
that I was wrong; that's OK too.) I didn't bother Cc'ing the IETF list
on this, since they're both very minor.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 

3.1:

   A set of non-overlapping available frequency ranges MUST be 
   disseminated in order to allow efficient resource management of 
   flexi-grid DWDM links and RSA procedures which are described in 
   Section 4.8 of [RFC7698]. 

Those MUSTs look weird to me. I think instead of "MUST be" you mean
"are", since it doesn't look like an implementation really has a
choice here.

3.2:

   Hence, in order to support all possible applications and 
   implementations the following information should be advertised for
   a flexi-grid DWDM link:
   
Is that "should" in there meant to be normative? That is, do bad
things happen if I don't advertise one of those items? Or do you just
mean "the following information is advertised..."?

---

From: Zhenghaomian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 01:22:20 +0000

Hi, Pete, 

Thanks for your review. Please find my considerations inline...

Best wishes,
Haomian

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2017年2月11日 7:24
收件人: [email-masked]
抄送: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题: Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-08

Reviewer: Pete Resnick

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Summary: Ready with Nits

A couple of nits that I mentioned in my earlier review that you might want to address, but none of them are essential. (You may have decided that I was wrong; that's OK too.) I didn't bother Cc'ing the IETF list on this, since they're both very minor.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 

3.1:

Those MUSTs look weird to me. I think instead of "MUST be" you mean "are", since it doesn't look like an implementation really has a choice here.
[Haomian] Noted and will change in next version.

3.2:

Is that "should" in there meant to be normative? That is, do bad things happen if I don't advertise one of those items? Or do you just mean "the following information is advertised..."? 

[Haomian] I feel weird if replace 'should be' with 'is', as you cannot support some application/implementation (rather than do bad things) if you don't advertise... How about following change? 

OLD
   Hence, in order to support all possible applications and 
   implementations the following information should be advertised for
   a flexi-grid DWDM link:
NEW
   Hence, in order to support all possible applications and 
   implementations the following information is required to be advertised
   for a flexi-grid DWDM link:

---

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:53:48 -0600

[Trimming down]

On 12 Feb 2017, at 19:22, Zhenghaomian wrote:

> [Haomian] I feel weird if replace 'should be' with 'is', as you cannot 
> support some application/implementation (rather than do bad things) if 
> you don't advertise... How about following change?
>
> OLD

Well, that's starting to feel like a SHOULD or a MUST. That is to say, 
some applications/implementations will not work if you don't advertise 
these things, so if you're not going to advertise one or more of them, 
you'd better know what you're doing and understand the consequences. 
That's the 2119 definition of SHOULD. On the other hand, if it's really 
always required because you really have to support all of those 
applications/implementations, and there are no good reasons to fail to 
advertise any of these things, then that's a MUST.

As I said before, I'm someone who doesn't like putting in MUSTs and 
SHOULDs (I've even written protocol documents where they never appear), 
but if you really mean "required" or "required unless you know what 
you're doing", I see no harm in putting them in.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Zhenghaomian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:38:50 +0000

Thanks Pete, then I prefer to keep it as it is, i.e., use the term 'should'. 

Best wishes,
Haomian

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2017年2月13日 9:54
收件人: Zhenghaomian
抄送: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题: Re: Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-08

[Trimming down]

>    for a flexi-grid DWDM link:

Well, that's starting to feel like a SHOULD or a MUST. That is to say, some applications/implementations will not work if you don't advertise these things, so if you're not going to advertise one or more of them, you'd better know what you're doing and understand the consequences. 
That's the 2119 definition of SHOULD. On the other hand, if it's really always required because you really have to support all of those applications/implementations, and there are no good reasons to fail to advertise any of these things, then that's a MUST.

As I said before, I'm someone who doesn't like putting in MUSTs and SHOULDs (I've even written protocol documents where they never appear), but if you really mean "required" or "required unless you know what you're doing", I see no harm in putting them in.

pr

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:41:17 +0200

Thanks for your (re)-review Pete

Jari