Linda, thanks for your review. Amy, thanks for your responses. I entered an Abstain ballot in keeping with <https://ietf.org/blog/support-documents-ietf-working-groups/?primary_topic=7&; <https://ietf.org/blog/support-documents-ietf-working-groups/?primary_topic=7&;>>.
Best, Alissa > On May 18, 2018, at 3:43 AM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Amy, > > Thank you for making the changes. Your changes are very good. No more > comments. I think the draft is ready for publication. > > Linda Dunbar > <> > From: Yemin (Amy) > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:55 PM > To: Yemin (Amy) <[email protected]>; Linda Dunbar > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Genart telechat review of > draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05 > > Hi Linda, > > We updated the draft, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework/> .. > The following text is added to address your first comments: > 1. Add "It's important to report the effective bandwidth of a radio link > since it can be configured to dynamically adjust the modulation based on the > current signal conditions." at the end of section 4.3.1. Actual status and > performance of a radio link interface. > 2. Add "It's important to report signal degradation of the radio link." > at the end of section 4.5.2 Alarm management. > Your rest comments are also addressed in the latest version. > > BR, > Amy > From: CCAMP [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > On Behalf Of Yemin (Amy) > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 2:10 PM > To: Linda Dunbar <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Genart telechat review of > draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05 > > Hi Linda, > > Thanks for your review. > Please see my reply inline below. > We will soon update the draft to address the comments. > > BR, > Amy > > -----Original Message----- > From: CCAMP [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 9:57 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [CCAMP] Genart telechat review of > draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05 > > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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 > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-microwave-framework-05 > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review Date: 2018-05-13 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-20 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-05-24 > > Summary: > > IETF LC End Date: N/A > IESG Telechat date: 2018-05- > > Summary: with a potential issue. > > Page11, Section 4.5: > Missing signal degradation or partial fault management. Radio link is heavily > impacted by weather. Rain/cloud can make a radio link lose up to 50% of its > capacity. Therefore, it will be quite useful to report the effective > bandwidth of the radio link. > [Amy] Yes, the bandwidth of the radio link is a very important > characteristic. We put the bandwidth in the mw topology model, not in the > interface model, just following the way in generic TE topology model. > Originally, this framework is for interface model only, therefore it doesn’t > address the bandwidth. We could update the framework to address your comments. > > Some questions: > > Page 6: Can one Radio Link be shared by multiple Carrier Terminations? If > yes, are those multiple Carrier Terminations terminated at one physical > device? > [Amy] Yes and yes. The figure below (from draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang) is for > your reference. > <image001.png> > Page 7: do you mean “key goal or key purpose of this work” in the following > sentence? “The adoption of an SDN framework for management and control the > microwave interface is one of the key applications for this work.” > [Amy] Yes, your wording is much better, will use it. > > Page 10, Section 4.1.2: What does “over the hop” mean in the first sentence? > Isn’t it same as “… establish L1 connectivity to an associated radio link…”? > [Amy] Please see the figure above, normally we call the near end node and far > end node as a hop. Here “over the hop” can be moved to the end of the > sentences, or completely removed. > > Major issues: N/A > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Best Regards, Linda Dunbar > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>_______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
