Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-08: (with COMMENT)

[Ramon Casellas <[e-mail]>]

On 13/02/2017 15:20, Zhenghaomian wrote:
> Hi, Mirja,
>
> Thank you for the review and comments. Please see my response as follow.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1) Is it really necessary to define a sub-TLV to a sub-TLV? The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is already a sub-TLV of the Link TLV and now you define another sub-sub-TVL for the Frequency availability bitmap.
> Is it really necessary to have another sub-TLV system here and a new/own registry, given you only define one (!) sub-sub-TLV? I would say you should remove this sub-sub-TLV system and the registry and simply define the bitmap as fixed part of the new Flexi-Grid-LSC sub-TLV. And if you every need another sub-sub-TLV you simply define another ISCD sub-TLV instead. I really don't think the additional complexity of this sub-sub-TLV system and the registry is justified!

> [Haomian] I am not sure whether it is harmful to define sub-TLV of other sub-TLVs, but personally I don't see much complexity by bringing SCSI extension. As your alternative proposal is really a huge change from the current draft, I think we should listen to more voices from WG. Anyway, it's a TLV re-organization issue.

Hi,

If I am not mistaken, it is my understanding that the proposed subTLV 
approach somehow follows RFC 7688 (see e.g Section 3.1 or 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7688#section-6.2) and (AFAICT) RFC 7138. 
Since it has been done before, I'm fine with having subTLVs of the 
ISCD-SCSI and I would not change it.

Regards
Ramon