IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 20 December 2011 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E3C21F88B6 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:22:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -94.37
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-94.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uyzIGipMH+QL for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:22:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy4-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy4-pub.bluehost.com [69.89.21.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5494E21F84C1 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:22:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 19510 invoked by uid 0); 20 Dec 2011 20:22:28 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy1.bluehost.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2011 20:22:28 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=0wOdFIW/izewDElrmRCvNj3vcdxfMOGH4WMr71XyCB8=; b=Rt0059xdqFPWjh9SqArcJe7TfWJiq69uIwJijJLOjjKZ+/kMPnaeHTJOzhh4AmQ702riiiUTByT3kqUYsSElEPRbB1hfKRapNTSBiwM03CWWkPhhs1cge4f4/Y3TjCXs;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Rd6Ch-0002fR-QA; Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:22:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4EF0EE83.3060601@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:22:27 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
References: <B5630A95D803744A81C51AD4040A6DAA2293E672A9@ESESSCMS0360.eemea.ericsson.se> <4ED69B7D.409@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A4B54CAEE5@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D81918795F@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CB0593@SZXEML520-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4EDE3E19.6010303@orange.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF825CC18AB@SZXEML520-MBS.china.huawei.com> <4EF0A18F.4080000@orange.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517AFD@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D819BA8E25@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517B62@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <5292FFA96EC22A4386067E9DBCC0CD2B010A0998FB37@EX-NAP.tellabs-west.tellabsinc.net> <4EF0B788.7020700@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517BE2@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <4EF0C99B.4020505@labn.net> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517E4F@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A54B517E4F@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:22:50 -0000

On 12/20/2011 2:02 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>> > In an earlier message I asked if you were interested in putting a draft
>> > together to document your proposed change to the base GMPLS specs.
> [
> [JD]  There are no changes to the base GMPLS specs.  We are not changing the base definition of PSC 1-4 and what we are defining is completely consistent with SDH/SONET.
> 

John,
	In an earlier message you said:

On 11/30/2011 5:23 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> Yes, I think that's fair.
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 1:51 PM
>> > To: John E Drake
>> > Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP
>> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)
>> >
>> > So you're basically arguing that SC shouldn't be used to indicate
>> > different levels of hierarchy, i.e., usage (b) in my earlier message,
>> > and that the definition of PSC-1 -> n was flawed.  Right?
>> >
>> > Which then reduces the meaning of SC to simply and indicator of label
>> > type and ISCD format indicator.
>> >
>> > Is this your position?
>> >

Deprecating PSC1-4 and making SC Type just an indicator of label and
ISCD format will be covered in the draft. The draft wouldn't say
anything specifically about OTN.

Lou

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email