Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04)
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 29 January 2013 18:47 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 975D221F888C for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:47:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.342
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.342 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 73ZKpGTt7tE9 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:47:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy11-pub.bluehost.com [173.254.64.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DB7BF21F86CA for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:47:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 11768 invoked by uid 0); 29 Jan 2013 18:46:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy11.bluehost.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2013 18:46:35 -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=6721QCy92HvbmlIt70R1EWqPc5NWHeBa/DIq8e7zHPU=; b=lm+dowoDHXxp0euAiDSFFkm4Gfhzju4OBhkpzKY1/33n6iUVx4rSHh7iQtyf+uJ1TYkApX23GAIETX4+04q9/YNsSzI9H4FEQY+847y8079FMt7hbDiplioXbO3Q6Pea;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:34707 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1U0GCZ-00020P-4R; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:46:35 -0700
Message-ID: <51081917.3080601@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:46:47 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Gruman, Fred" <fred.gruman@us.fujitsu.com>
References: <5106DED0.3090008@labn.net> <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D3B372E9@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <5DF87403A81B0C43AF3EB1626511B2923C33126F@RCHEXMBP1.fnc.net.local>
In-Reply-To: <5DF87403A81B0C43AF3EB1626511B2923C33126F@RCHEXMBP1.fnc.net.local>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04)
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, 29 Jan 2013 18:47:03 -0000
Fred, Thanks for the input. On 1/29/2013 12:54 PM, Gruman, Fred wrote: > Hi Lou, > > I am not clear on option 2 as when I look into draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-05, the IANA section shows the c-type for the GENERALIZE_LABEL defined in RFC 3473, not a new c-type. > > OTN-TDM Generalized Label Object: > > o OTN-TDM Generalized Label Object: Class = 16, C-Type = 2 (see > Section 5.1) > I didn't notice that inconsistency. Per http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-05#section-5: The traffic parameters for OTN-TDM capable Switching Type are carried in the OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects. The objects have the following class and type: - OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC Object: Class = 12, C-Type = 7 (TBA) - OTN-TDM FLOWSPEC Object: Class = 9, C-Type = 7 (TBA) Lou > I'm open to either carrying ODUflex(GFP) bandwidth as floating-point or integer N, but would like to see consistency between routing and signaling documents. > > > Regards, > Fred > > -----Original Message----- > From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:41 AM > To: Lou Berger; CCAMP > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04) > > Hi Lou, C-campers: > > I would pick Option 2; it's cleaner and addresses the issue related to > overloading the same c-type. > > Thanks > > Regards…Zafar > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net> > Date: Monday, January 28, 2013 3:25 PM > To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org> > Subject: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was: WG Last Call > comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04) > >> All, >> We would like to try to close the discussion on the G.709 >> drafts so that we can move rapidly towards publication request. The >> discussion of (one of my) LC comments has resulted in several options >> for the signaling ODU-related traffic parameters, and the point has >> been raised that realigning routing with signaling should be discussed. >> >> Please keep in mind that the objective of any PS is interoperability, >> and that there may be early implementations that match g709v3-04. >> >> The basic question is one of if N, the number of time slots needed to >> support a ODUflex(GFP) signal, should be carried as a calculated IEEE >> floating point number or directly. Options 1 and 2 below reflect the >> former, options 3 and 4 match the latter. It is worth noting that only >> options 1 and 2 are proposed for ODUflex(GFP), i.e., N must be >> calculated for ODUflex(CBR) signal types with all options. >> >> Please state your support for one the options and, if you wish, the >> justification for your position: >> >> 1) Follow draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 >> i.e., redefine [RFC4328] Traffic Parameters c-type when used with >> OTN-TDM labels. ODUflex(GFP) number of tributary slots (N) is >> encoded as: >> >> ... the Bit_Rate field for ODUflex(GFP) MUST >> equal to one of the 80 values listed below: >> >> 1 * ODU2.ts; 2 * ODU2.ts; ...; 8 * ODU2.ts; >> 9 * ODU3.ts; 10 * ODU3.ts, ...; 32 * ODU3.ts; >> 33 * ODU4.ts; 34 * ODU4.ts; ...; 80 * ODU4.ts. >> >> 2) Follow draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-05 >> i.e., use a new C-type for OTN-TDM labels. Encoding details >> unchanged from g709v3-04. >> (This option addresses the issue of the same c-type needing to >> be parsed based on label/switching type.) >> >> 3) Follow draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-06 >> i.e., use a new C-type for OTN-TDM labels. N is directly carried >> for ODUflex(GFP) only. >> >> 4) Discussed, but not in any draft >> Use draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 encoding for all >> but ODUflex(GFP), and define new ODUflex(GFP) specific Traffic >> Parameters based on g709v3-06, presumably with unused fields >> removed. >> (This also addresses the issue of the same c-type needing to be >> parsed based on label type, but means there are different types >> based on signal type.) >> >> Option 1 and 2 do not imply any changes to routing, while options 3 and >> 4 may. Routing implications will be discussed based on the results of >> this poll, and only if there is consensus to support positions 3 or 4. >> >> We hope to make a consensus call by the end of the week, but will >> continue the discussion as needed. >> >> Much thanks, >> Lou (and Deborah) >> >> On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I think the changes proposed are meaningful and would support them in >>> an individual or early WG draft, but they don't seem to provide >>> significative advantages to risk interworking issues with early >>> implementations. >>> Moreover the changes don't allow us getting totally rid of of the >>> bit_rate field as it is still needed for ODUflex (CBR). >>> >>> My 2c >>> Daniele >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: lunedì 28 gennaio 2013 4.47 >>>> To: Lou Berger >>>> Cc: Gruman, Fred; Fatai Zhang; Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP; >>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on >>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 >>>> >>>> Hi Lou- >>>> >>>> Please see in-line. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Regards...Zafar >>>> >>>> On 1/27/13 9:46 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Zafar, >>>>> Is your comment with respect to just routing or both >>>> signaling and >>>>> routing? >>>> >>>> Both, including consistency between signaling and routing attributes. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also, when you say "implementations based on draft versions", >>>> do these >>>>> implementations include support for ODUflex? (Which has really been >>>>> the focus of the discussion.) >>>> >>>> Yes, I was referring to ODUFlex. As you know, fixed ODU is >>>> signaled via level (0 BW) so its not an issue. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> BTW I took Fred's comments as related to just the new >>>> OTN-specific ISCD >>>>> definitions (section 4.1.2 of ospf-g709v3-05, in particular). Note >>>>> that section 4.1.1 already carries N (number of ODUs) not >>>> IEEE floating >>>>> point representations of available bandwidth. >>>> >>>> What I meant is Unreserved Bandwidth at priority x and Max LSP >>>> Bandwidth at priority x. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much thanks, >>>>> Lou >>>>> >>>>> On 1/27/2013 7:46 PM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: >>>>>> All- >>>>>> >>>>>> This impacts existing implementations based on draft versions (and >>>>>> hence interop with these implementations moving forward). >>>> IMO this is >>>>>> a bigger change for us to assume at the last call stage. >>>> Furthermore >>>>>> we have been using IEEE floating point format for Unreserved >>>>>> Bandwidth/ Max LSP BW in IEEE floating point format for other >>>>>> technologies. Overall, I think this change suffers from the >>>> "law of diminishing returns". >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards Š Zafar >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/27/13 10:28 AM, "Gruman, Fred" >>>> <fred.gruman@us.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Lou, Fatai, Daniele, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand the latest change to the way bandwidth is >>>> signaled for >>>>>>> ODUflex(GFP), i.e., signaling the number of tributary slots >>>> N instead >>>>>>> of the bandwidth rate in bps. I believe that this simplifies the >>>>>>> signaling and interoperability so I'm in agreement with >>>> this change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, it seems we are now inconsistent between how we >>>> represent >>>>>>> bandwidth in routing and signaling for ODUflex(GFP). Routing >>>>>>> advertises the bandwidth using a floating point representation of >>>>>>> bandwidth, while signaling is using the number of tributary slots. >>>>>>> It seems the same benefits would be obtained by >>>> advertising the max >>>>>>> LSP bandwidth and unreserved bandwidth for ODUflex(GFP) in >>>> terms of >>>>>>> the number of tributary slots. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fred >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>>>>> Behalf Of Lou Berger >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:08 AM >>>>>>> To: Fatai Zhang >>>>>>> Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on >>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fatai, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/23/2013 6:49 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Lou, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For ODUflex(CBR), the formula is from [G.709-2012] and it >>>> has been >>>>>>>> discussed before, so please trust that there is no >>>> opportunity for >>>>>>>> misinterpretation. (Note that there are two cases, one is >>>>>>>> ODUflex(CBR) and another one is ODUflex(GFP)). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In addtion, ODUflex cannot be concatenated by [G.709-2012]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for confirming my understanding. This raises the >>>> question of >>>>>>> if the new traffic should just apply to ODUFlex? Correct >>>> me if I'm >>>>>>> wrong, but I believe the [RFC4328] is sufficient in all >>>> other cases. >>>>>>> This may also make it easier for early implementations of >>>> the draft >>>>>>> as then they can limit code changes from the (-03) rev to >>>> only ODUflex LSPs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just to be clear, I'm really just *asking* about this. As I said >>>>>>> before, I'm open on specifics... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any thoughts/comments? Authors? Implementors? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will issue a new version tomorrow to capture all your comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fatai >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:11 AM >>>>>>>> To: Fatai Zhang >>>>>>>> Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on >>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fatai, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/20/2013 9:43 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Lou, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You said: >>>>>>>>>> but you're says encoded as (N*Nominal Rate) right? Wat's the >>>>>>>>>> value of this vs just carrying N? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [Fatai] The original way (in version 04&05) is putting >>>> (N* Nominal >>>>>>>>> Rate) in "Bit_Rate" field for ODUflex(GFP), the value is that we >>>>>>>>> can generalize to just use one single "Bit_Rate" field to carry >>>>>>>>> IEEE float number for both cases, it seems that you >>>> don't agree on >>>>>>>>> this value, :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've seen differences in calculated floating point values from >>>>>>>> different implementations, so I just want to ensure that >>>> such cases >>>>>>>> are avoided. >>>>>>>> I'm open to specific solutions and certainly will deffer on the >>>>>>>> specifics assuming there is no opportunity for >>>>>>>> misinterpretation/interop issues. I don't think the >>>> original passed >>>>>>>> this threshold, i.e.,: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> N = Ceiling of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ODUflex(CBR) nominal bit rate * (1 + ODUflex(CBR) bit rate >>>>>>>> tolerance) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ---------- >>>>>>>> ODTUk.ts nominal bit rate * (1 - HO OPUk bit rate >>>> tolerance) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> . Therefore, I (was) am saying that I am going to accept your >>>>>>>>> suggestion to carry N for ODUflex(GFP). We are >>>> discussing where to >>>>>>>>> put N for ODUflex(GFP). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You said: >>>>>>>>>> bits in the control plane are generally cheap, IMO it's >>>> better to >>>>>>>>>> have simpler encoding than to optimize every bit (or 8 in this >>>>>>>>>> case). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [Fatai] OK, I will add a new field (to occupy the reserved bits) >>>>>>>>> to carry N. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As you see fit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just to clarify my understanding, ODUflex and Virtual >>>> concatenation >>>>>>>> can never be combined for the same signal type/level, right? >>>>>>>> (Although an ODUflex client signal could be carried over >>>> a virtual >>>>>>>> concatenated ODUk). Is this correct or did I miss something in >>>>>>>> G709? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fatai >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 1:42 AM >>>>>>>>> To: Fatai Zhang >>>>>>>>> Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/15/2013 10:16 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Lou, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To avoid misunderstanding, I would like to clarify more on the >>>>>>>>>> following point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is better to have consistent format and the same meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of one >>>>>>>>> field for both ODUflex(CBR) and GFP. This is why we have section >>>>>>>>> 5.1 >>>>>>>>> &5.2 to describe the complex stuff. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I actually wasn't suggesting that N be carried in >>>> the bit rate >>>>>>>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The bit rate field can either be set as described or to zero >>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e., ignored). At the time, I was thinking about >>>> carrying N >>>>>>>>>>>>> in the reserved field. But perhaps the right place >>>> is MT, if >>>>>>>>>>>>> my understanding is right (would always be 1 >>>> otherwise). I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>> open to either... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [Fatai] Why not just use "bit rate"field to carry >>>> "N"because "N" >>>>>>>>>>>> implies bit rate? I am OK if you like to use a new >>>> filed (like >>>>>>>>>>>> "TS >>>>>>>>>>>> Number") to occupy the reserved field even though >>>> that I prefer >>>>>>>>>>>> the original approach (ie., use "bit rate"field to carry "N"). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you proposing dropping carrying bit rates >>>> represented as an >>>>>>>>>>> IEEE floating point and just carrying N for ODUflex? >>>> This seems >>>>>>>>>>> workable to me, but we should ensure that there are no >>>>>>>>>>> significant objections. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [Fatai] There are two usages for " Bit_Rate " field as >>>> described >>>>>>>>>> in the lines 287-310. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (1) For ODUflex(CBR), the Bit_Rate field indicates >>>> the nominal >>>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>>>> rate of ODUflex(CBR) expressed in bytes per second, >>>> encoded as a >>>>>>>>>> 32-bit IEEE single precision floating-point number. For this >>>>>>>>>> case, we MUST use 32-bit IEEE floating point instead of >>>>>>>>>> "N"(Please see more in section 5.1). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I guess you really still need (to be based on) the client signal >>>>>>>>> rate at the edges. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (2) For ODUflex(GFP), we can change the text (the >>>> lines from 305 >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> 310) based on your suggestion, ie., the Bit_Rate field >>>> is used to >>>>>>>>>> carry "N"to indicate the nominal bit rate of the ODUflex(GFP). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but you're says encoded as (N*Nominal Rate) right? Wat's the >>>>>>>>> value of this vs just carrying N? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I am proposing using one single filed ("Bit_Rate ") >>>>>>>>>> for these two cases, in this way, we can leave the "Reserved" >>>>>>>>>> bits for future. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> bits in the control plane are generally cheap, IMO it's >>>> better to >>>>>>>>> have simpler encoding than to optimize every bit (or 8 in this >>>>>>>>> case). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hope we are now at the same page. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best Regards >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fatai >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> CCAMP mailing list >>>>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> CCAMP mailing list >>>>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> CCAMP mailing list >> CCAMP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call: g709-framework, g709-info-m… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: g709-framework, g709-in… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ie… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ie… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- [CCAMP] Fwd: Re: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on… Huub van Helvoort
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on draf… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments on … Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: WG Last Call comments… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call comments on draft-ie… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was: WG… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Gruman, Fred
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Fwd: RE: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was:… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was:… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Rajan Rao
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding (was… Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fred Gruman
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding Gruman, Fred