Re: [CCAMP] Question about identities with multiple bases

tom petch <> Fri, 05 June 2020 11:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767973A147F; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 04:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wTs4WvSPbQmB; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 04:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E78083A1481; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 04:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901;; cv=none; b=Cz1vvOo9TvC9HlImLQjua3wO1BOO5o17wV6Ad02Yom+Q60/RD3j1YnXZLTGPivqK3iCtVR+kS/essY9ckelhlAdnUq6IrkmV9u6dcea97HyhgsEjwK8a8cQK+k/gBNs+diRMmjtjEccX8H6iX/14P2qUgNGo3lUkChIgP7qd2hgX8qeh6VDyv4zPlpHwU/uh3eTFHDeQfUgW5C0jr6Xskmxf9vIBQor2ZmKqd8A+nMwZKRxWRrdzsLhxlaLmZDUC1odVn9ecz5ok8GRYSGkLJcmzsnDKrG2K3/ph1+ryGgAntgKlo9z7nUs86yK2u8KfT2u4flk7+I6KGCg6qliCIg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=wDH9O+VT/duPA5CHcvHB+2mCCvPaeO1j1d8cUCUxiE4=; b=IJhZj2zlm8mUe8OguEWY2X4T8kegsvPa2WK+AGz9HOetZ/LALfiArwHhmJ9nCUoX2GX5++8ZUzBRRSpMqtsliK/i/LYuXUTnwoei03Z/9OQiEhecN4pVUwHpCdeP8cgplIzISBslKOit9pgErbtfzMvDx5IRE/o4Jqhvgc3dFvzVJwYkvs3HBRTh+HhDEwcMqG857QC0tgtiBOGYwvnCKHpVqG5G3g3zff43Z7YCOkkD97laYyP83uXnHMOcqprlsbQ4GpQj1rtguIF6TDwPB/UzHj6fFQs3X3YyWnvzFviILBSlPBnbcS8ANR0FG0OPsY1T7VNYu9FWf2EbV5FGiw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; 1; spf=pass; dmarc=pass action=none; dkim=pass; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector2-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=wDH9O+VT/duPA5CHcvHB+2mCCvPaeO1j1d8cUCUxiE4=; b=wHvSjfnrHWSrrAcEwlyCI6mf8Yz9J5IC0v0rCucKj2T5KF1uV1Sn3R8+qHbpL4gzDCm9EqzCsgoMtjZ9ZIdM9x+ex084pmJiBEr6RHKLNmOQQj07WDIssnlRw8fg5yUlRyCdyWjo22IAAbDrqaDpH8V4vWE51TwbcnJD/OiNeQw=
Received: from (2603:10a6:10:198::14) by (2603:10a6:6:53::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3066.7; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:10:59 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::592c:285:6786:bc65]) by ([fe80::592c:285:6786:bc65%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3088.011; Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:10:59 +0000
From: tom petch <>
To: Italo Busi <>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Question about identities with multiple bases
Thread-Index: AQHWOyn9e66LWFPDXEy5Nf+itES2/Q==
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:10:59 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 079ecc88-481d-4205-0b27-08d809412070
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB6PR07MB4423:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0425A67DEF
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: hJznCOWepBiQi93nFTu/NL3gmpZ4e3th+UOBh9qDMNwnhQEufH7q/2gt9x2M0PpbuAMLz86urxK6wZnZ/AHmmuxp3mZP00IPIM4lLQ4mu9FesxCvOZPPsXG4RccH/lzgaP4yWHEHE/oG+YSrWHoVQS2FK1eeX/SioR/fgIpq7awNbnUKbDwdmu2YkMeqI9RseA4jWK3ZJDLnk/Rhm1pUPqejQQiQD9VF6iHTFxq15+UI7T2rW7SvEQUU0j0NaFLXM/yUiClLK548sdpOSOApkSMsm+6ATucmAuEstKq2v313y3yQ8WdDJQ5Ge2E9EuR3/HUUXEiDAVM0jWj8tr0Zp1lYg99n3OCOEAeQ4kY6IBcpV+AjfleJIGSARxi2VUkVeAceArrRWS70WoBcR8uOP6V+iyyvrblII6eqFgYhDgvDLiY0/xJK6M5ZT711+3gTb9PD997iGz6sWrpubTBXng==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM;; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(66476007)(5660300002)(66946007)(66556008)(66446008)(76116006)(91956017)(83380400001)(86362001)(4326008)(55016002)(64756008)(71200400001)(9686003)(966005)(33656002)(316002)(52536014)(8936002)(186003)(110136005)(478600001)(2906002)(26005)(8676002)(7696005)(15974865002)(6506007)(54906003)(473944003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: D6O75pPsBQjnFOsQi5CQcuEfUIrsx/Hn4Z6w9fH3/31Zw0bOXoetCNF/Tc2E9cgmZnrYYvTiiYoXi6SE41E9NQ8LHNMCOgBhUfova9rZDwylq1goJTz7U6LUJl4K99MmoA4MI2jQiqNKYlZeRqdKqgAeP3Inb/Qh69nNlH7cmdGYV0d9aQyRw9j5VzfODx3IFbDRl7IIqhXFMvDyOtX5K4KbwRL3Ub0h4Dbf31MvzCaC+F+ihUTO3/xtRqP3tYkTiOLJtm/GXjwES1kzbmxyin29AlCkhhZEJ0eXWNV2gCqgmUOrohpL45Mr9h1wg5HJ4maJP11V5e1163zKTVEacRiBETVmUT7mhcjsP0WfOxT3nP4fuhSzHuAg4ccsu7YGw54ZrUG5VdifQiTDmsyBj+n7RR5Z97Fn46i3foqim4Ne4m6HEOXdK78kTpLT0NuJusiGWJVLcK1LsEqV1G4029YnEg/V9YjfXcTEe7jwGKA=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 079ecc88-481d-4205-0b27-08d809412070
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jun 2020 11:10:59.3573 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Z4BKnOxainOHwxCaE6wBr3uiAa4Fo2A2mvv7DBAdMQ+Aq7h+OJ6FlIF+3sr61wBOzZSK1msce2rPrhxcnH7o4w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR07MB4423
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question about identities with multiple bases
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 11:11:05 -0000

From: CCAMP <> on behalf of Italo Busi <>
Sent: 19 May 2020 17:49

Hi Rob,

We have discussed an open issue with the ietf-l1csm which is impacting the ietf-layer1-types YANG model, for which we are addressing CCAMP WG LC comments

See slides 3 and 4 of the attached presentation made during the CCAMP WG virtual meeting last week

Since we have not much experience with identities having multiple bases, we would like to get a feedbacks from you about whether the proposed solution would work

I have not seen a response to your question.  I had a look and it seems ok but like you I do not see much of this construct in IETF modules.

So while it may be ok, that does make me wonder; is this approach too complicated?  If you and I are uncertain about it, then what about future users - will they be comfortable with it?  I had to look up which Boolean operator applied with multiple bases!

Separately, having persuaded my obstructionist ESP to let me send an e-mail, I see a number of quirks in the English of layer1-types.  Are you interested in hearing about them? (assuming that my ESP lets me:-)

Tom Petch

You can check initial changes to ETH-1GbE, FICON-4G and STM-1 identities in github:

Let me report here the key ones:

  identity ETH-1Gb {
    base client-signal;
      "Client signal type of 1GbE";
    reference "RFC7139/ITU-T G.709";

  identity FICON-4G {
    base client-signal;
      "Client signal type of Fibre Connection 4G";
    reference "RFC4328/RFC7139";

  identity ETH-1000X {
    base "coding-func";
    base Ethernet;
      "1000BASE-X PCS clause 36 coding function.";
    reference "MEF63: Subscriber Layer 1 Service Attributes";

  identity STM-1 {
    base client-signal;
    base "coding-func";
    base SDH;
      "STM-1 client signal;
       STM-1 G.707 (N=1) coding function.";
      "RFC7139/ITU-T G.709
       MEF63: Subscriber Layer 1 Service Attributes";

              leaf client-signal {
                type identityref {
                  base "l1-types:client-signal";
                mandatory true;
                  "The client signal being used at the UNI";

Then ETH-1GbE, FICON-4G and STM-1 would be valid configuration for the client-signa leaf, while ETH-1000X will not be valid

    leaf coding {
      type identityref {
        base "l1-types:coding-func";
      must 'derived-from(../coding, ../protocol)';
      mandatory true;
      description "The coding function being used at the UNI.";

- ETH-1000X would be valid configuration of the coding leaf, if Ethernet is configured, otherwise it is invalid;
- STM-1 would be valid configuration of the coding leaf, if SDH is configure as protocol, otherwise it is invalid;
- ETH-1GbE and FICON-4G would never be valid configuration of the coding leaf

Before applying these changes to a lot of identities, it would be good to check that our understanding is correct

What do you think?

Thanks in advance


Italo Busi
Principal Optical Transport Network Research Engineer


Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l.
Address: Centro Direzionale Milano 2, Palazzo Verrocchio, 20090 Segrate (MI)
Tel: +39 345 4721946 - Mobile:<>

Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l. is a company registered in Italy at the Company Registration Office of Milan, with registered number 04501190963 and equity capital €3,000,000 fully paid up, whose registered office is in Milan, Via Lorenteggio 240, Tower A, 20147 Milan, Italy. Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l. is 100% owned by Huawei Technologies Cooperatief U.A.
CONAI Reg. No. cc 12639454 - A.E.E. Registry No. IT10010000006521 - Batteries and Accumulators Registry No. IT12050P00002839.
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! Thank you.
PRIVACY NOTICE: Pursuant to Art. 13 of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR), Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l. informs you that the personal data contained in this email will be collected and treated for the acquisition of information preliminary to the conclusion of contracts, for the definition of the contractual relationship, as well as for the fulfillment of legal requirements related to civil, tax and accounting law or any other legal obligation to which Huawei may be subject. Personal data will not be subject to disclosure and spread unless otherwise required by law. Huawei will take appropriate security measures to protect personal data against loss, misuse disclosure or destruction of the information. Personal Data held may be transferred to countries outside the European Union, however Huawei Italia has put in place appropriate safeguards for the transfer of personal data to third countries by adopting the standard data protection clauses of the EU Commission. Personal Data are kept for a period necessary for the fulfillment of contract obligations unless otherwise required by law. You can exercise your rights under Art. 15 and following of the GDPR (i.e. right of access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, object) by contacting Huawei at this email address:<> or through the following channel:<>st>. You have also the right to lodge a complaint with the competent supervisory authorities. If you need any further information or have any queries on how Huawei process your personal data, please send an email to our Data Protection Officer at<>.The Data Controller is Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l. with registered office in Milan, Via Lorenteggio 240 Tower A, 20147.