Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 15 January 2013 16:56 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 E6C1021F8756 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:56:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.822
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, 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 MDVjSXF-EqNn for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy13-pub.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy13-pub.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.16.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E70E21F86D3 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 17090 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jan 2013 16:56:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy13.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2013 16:56:15 -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=6lQE48cM9Jf5wJfbl4e70UGGdo+vDWOoEOGd6qq8BJk=; b=V2asuw7KM2iFBRV6ug8jFvJ2bt8jVZCJ3bDP4te7xQ9Qt4x98acJ4XqyZKCelFT9KOhYFtXEMhnkIXPmk4IgYKuvs8B8ve/o5H+/537jyzhFZML6ykEQd+hOq7JhRxCe;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:42485 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Tv9o6-0003lD-Nn; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:56:15 -0700
Message-ID: <50F58A35.7040806@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:56:21 -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: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
References: <50733BED.8090304@labn.net> <5084A8C0.1010607@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF83583E820@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <50D31CB7.9000704@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835842D0F@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <50E5FD4A.1080207@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835855DB5@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835855DB5@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"
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>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 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, 15 Jan 2013 16:56:42 -0000
Fatai, Please see below for responses in-line . Lou On 1/15/2013 2:47 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote: > Hi Lou, > > Sorry for late response because of my vacation. > > Please see in-line below. > > > > > Best Regards > > Fatai > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 5:51 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 >> >> >> Hi Fatai, >> Happy new year. Please see below for responses. >> >> On 12/25/2012 3:33 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >>> >>> Hi Lou, >>> >>> Please see in-line below. >>> >>> A new version will be issued after all open issues are resolved. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> Fatai >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:12 PM >>>> To: Fatai Zhang >>>> Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>> Subject: Re: 答复: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on >> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 >>>> >>>> Fatai/Authors, >>>> Thank you for the mail, and sorry about my delayed response. BTW >>>> please feel free to continue discussing the remaining open issues on the >>>> list and reaching closure on the list (on specific text/resolutions) >>>> prior to publishing the next rev. >>>> >>>> Please see below for inline responses. >>>> >>>> On 12/7/2012 4:53 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >>>>> Hi Lou, >>>>> >>>>> Please see how the LC comments addressed below. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> >>>>> Fatai >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----邮件原件----- >>>>> 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 >> Lou Berger >>>>> 发送时间: 2012年10月22日 10:01 >>>>> 收件人: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >>>>> 主题: [CCAMP] WG Last Call comments on >> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04 >>>>> >>>>> Authors, >>>>> I have the following LC comments: >>>>> >>>>> General comments: >>>>> >>>>> - This document also needs some addition work on conformance language. >>>>> I'll try to point out cases in the detailed comments below. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] OK. Checked and refined based on your detailed comments. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think this rev is an improvement, but there's still more work needed. >>>> I have made some specific comments/suggestions below. >>>> >>>>> - Section 5 essentially defines a new set of traffic parameters. Given >>>>> the changes, why not ask for a new C-TYPE and not worry about [RFC4328] >>>>> compatibility/description? >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted to have a new C-TYPE and updated the text accordingly. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Okay. >>>> >>>>> Detailed editorial and technical comments: >>>>> >>>>> - Please verify that abbreviations are defined before being used . >>>>> There are a number of these. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Went through and updated. >>>> >>>> thanks. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Please use a consistent decimal representation (sometimes commas are >>>>> used other times periods) >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] OK. Commas are used. >>>> >>>> great, although a quick skim finds: >>>> s/1,301.683.217/1,301,683.217 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - the references [G709-v1] and [G709-v3] each actually refer to multiple >>>>> documents, each documented needs to have it's own (correct) reference, >>>>> i.g., [G709-v1] and [G709-v1a1]. The document text will need to be >>>>> revisited to ensure the proper reference is made. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and used the same approach for framework draft. >>>> >>>> great >>>> >>>> >>>>> - >>>>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-04.txt >>>>> shows there are unresolved nits that need to resolved . >>>> >>>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-05.txt >>>> still shows a warning, notably: >>>> >>>> (Using the creation date from RFC4328, updated by this document, for >>>> RFC5378 checks: 2005-01-17) >>>> >>>> -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, >> but may >>>> have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. >> If you >>>> have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing >> to grant >>>> the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you >> can ignore >>>> this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 >> disclaimer. >>>> (See the Legal Provisions document at >> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) >>>> >>> [Fatai] Will update “Copyright Notice” section. >> >> okay >> >>>> >>>>> I'm using line >>>>> numbers from this url in my subsequent comments. >>>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> - Section 3. Perhaps combine with section 1. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and refined. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see where this suggestion was followed, but that's okay, it was >>>> just a suggestion. >>>> >>> [Fatai] OK. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>>> - Section 5: assuming this is now a new c-type need text for that, as >>>>> well as to formally defined the fields/field sizes. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted to have a new C-TYPE and updated the text accordingly. >>>> >>>> Formal field definitions are missing and need to be added. >>>> >> >>> [Fatai] The format is the same as RFC4328. Did you mean that it >>> needs “Length”, “Class-Num” and “C-Type”? If yes, I will add >>> them. If you mean that it needs text to define all the fields, I >>> think the text is already there (then this comment may be related >>> to your other comments below). >> >> Its important to differentiate the syntax (i.e., format) from the >> semantics (i.e., usage). How about: >> >> Signal Type: 8 bits >> As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.1, with the following additional >> values: >> (insert lines 266-285) >> >> Reserved: 8 bits >> As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.5. >> >> Tolerance: 16 bits >> (insert lines 296-298) >> >> NVC: 16 bits >> As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.3. >> >> Multiplier (MT): 16 bits >> As defined in [RFC4328] Section 3.2.4. >> >> Bit_Rate: 32 bits >> (insert lines 290-294) >> >> The other parts, lines 287-288, 300-319 should be merged into section 5.1. >> > [Fatai] Got it. OK to accept your suggestion and try to update the > text in this way. I assume this is a statement not a question. Let me know if there is a question, or discussion point here. >> >>>> >>>> Also the draft says: >>>> >>>> Note that the error process on the traffic parameters MUST follow the >>>> rules defined in Section 6 of [RFC4328]. >>>> >>>> Given the different fields, shouldn't any OTN-TDM related traffic >> parameter processing now be defined in this document? >>>> >>> [Fatai] I just wanted to avoid the overlapped text (almost the same >> text as RFC4328). Will accept your suggestion to expand the text as follows: >>> >>> There is no Adspec associated with the OTN-TDM SENDER_TSPEC. Either >>> the Adspec is omitted or an Int-serv Adspec with the Default General >>> Characterization Parameters and Guaranteed Service fragment is used, >>> see [RFC2210]. >>> >>> For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC >>> object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents >>> of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path >>> message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a >>> "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. >>> >>> Intermediate and egress nodes MUST verify that the node itself, and >>> the interfaces on which the LSP will be established, can support the >>> requested Signal Type, NVC, Tolerance and Bit_Rate values. If the >>> requested value(s) cannot be supported, the receiver node MUST >>> generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Service >>> unsupported" indication (see [RFC2205]). >>> >>> In addition, if the MT field is received with a zero value, the node >>> MUST generate a PathErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad >>> Tspec value" indication (see [RFC2205]). >>> >> >> Is this a new section, perhaps 5.3? >> > [Fatai] Yes. Try to add a new section to describe what you want. Hereto, I assume this is a statement of intent not a question. Let me know if there is a question, or discussion point here. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> - Lines 320-336,338-346 are essentially repeated in sections 5.1 and >>>>> 5.2, why not move this text into their respective sections? >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and refined the text. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see where this suggestion was followed. For example: >>>> >>>> 287 In case of ODUflex(CBR), the Bit_Rate and Tolerance fields MUST be >>>> 288 used together to represent the actual bandwidth of ODUflex, where: >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> 323 In case of ODUflex(CBR), the information of Bit_Rate and >> Tolerance in >>>> 324 the ODUflex traffic parameters MUST be used to determine the total >>>> 325 number of tributary slots N in the HO ODUk link to be reserved. Here: >>>> >>> [Fatai] Sorry I should not say “Accepted and refined the text.” >>> last time. They are not repeated. here, the text just describes the >>> meaning of the corresponding fields (as we always do), so the above >>> text should be there irrespectively. Section 5.1 & section 5.2 >>> describe “how” with more detail information including formulation, >>> Table information and example. >>> >> If the text in the early part of 5 is revised as I suggest above (and >> the other lines are merged as suggested above) then this comment will be >> resolved. >> > [Fatai] OK. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - lines 445-468: Why not just carry "n" directly? >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] to make it consistent with ODUflex(CBR). >>>> >>>> Given that the recent decision to have an OTN-TDM specific set of >>>> traffic parameters, doesn't it now make sense to just carry N directly? >>>> >>> [Fatai] No. “N” cannot be used for ODUflex(CBR) case. >> >> Do you really mean "cannot"? I may be missing something, but it would >> seem less ambiguous/prone to interop issues if N was directly carried. >> > [Fatai] My misunderstanding here. I thought you proposed to replace > “bit rate” with “N”. Great. >> >>> 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. > BTW, I don’t think MT is the right place (it will cause ambiguity if > MT is used to indicate “TS Number”). I'm not sure which case you're referring to, but I don't think we need to worry about it given your proposed encoding. >> >> >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Line 576: "Padded bits" seems off, how about "Pad bits" or "Padding", >>>> >>>> Again, how about "Pad bits" or "Padding"? >>>> >>> [Fatai] OK. Should use “Pad bits” instead of “Padding bits” >> >> “Pad bits” it is... >> >>>> >>>>> also bits aren't represented in label format (line 494)., also "behind" >>>>> --> "after" >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated. >>>>> >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Lines 658-660. The normative language in 4328 isn't actually >>>>> presented in the section titled "label distribution procedures" (or >>>>> "rules" as section 4.2 is actually titled), so this paragraph doesn't >>>>> make sense. I suggest either (a) defining the full set of required >>>>> procedures in this document, or (b) referring to the "required >>>>> processing defined in [RFC4328]" and other rfcs as appropriate. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated accordingly. >>>>> >>>>> - Lines 662-667: what about generating upstream, suggested, label set, >>>>> etc. Perhaps you should rephrase much into more general rules. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated accordingly. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think section 6.2 still needs a bit of work. >>>> >>>> So are there procedures that an ingress must follow? >>>> For example: >>>> - Setting of fields in the label request object, such as the OTN-TDM >>>> Switching Type defined in [OTN-OSPF]. >>>> >>>> What about the egress, are there any special procedures? >>>> >>>> The final three paragraphs of the section introduce upstream behaviors >>>> *after* you've described the downstream behavior without specifics of >>>> the new upstream behavior. As a general rule and in this case in >>>> particular, I really think it would be better to cover procedures in the >>>> following order >>>> - Ingress >>>> - Generic upstream >>>> - Generic downstream >>>> - Egress >>>> >>>> Also, generic statements should not use conformance language, >>>> particularly when more detailed rules/procedures, which include such >>>> language, follow. >>>> >>>> If you'd like we can discuss/review details on the list once you have a >>>> proposed revision. (I see a bunch of more minor comments on this >>>> section, but don't think it makes sense to focus on these until the more >>>> major comments are addressed.) >>>> >>> [Fatai] Will refine the text based on your suggestion. Do I need to >>> copy so much text here for review? >> >> It's up to you, but personally, I think it's better to discuss the text >> on the list first rather than publishing and then discuss/wordsmith. >> But this is just a personal preference. Either way works. (draft >> revision numbers are cheap after all.) >> > [Fatai] OK, I will issue a new version to capture all the updates and > make it easy for people to converge. As you wish. >> >>>> >>>> >>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> - Lines 682-685: Who is this learning/identification accomplished? >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated. >>>>> >>>>> - Lines 703-704: If this is the normative section defining requirement >>>>> processing, the procedures need to be spelled out for all required >> cases. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated accordingly. >>>>> >>>>> - Lines 706-707: I think this needs to be rephrased to be clear what >>>>> behavior is required for a node to be conformant with this sentence. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and refined accordingly. >>>>> >>>>> - Lines 711-714: why "SHOULD" vs "MUST"? >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'll defer responses to the discussion on prior comment. >>>> >>>>> - Line 712: By "integrity of the label" do you mean "if the label is >>>>> acceptable"? >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Yes, and updated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Line 725: By "reserved resource" do you mean "indicated resource"? >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Yes, and updated. >>>>> >>>>> - Line 726: Does "do not match" mean "inconsistent"? >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Yes, and updated. >>>> >>>> WRT lines 624-627, I think you still need additional specificity >>>> differentiate upstream/downstream required behavior. Perhaps something >>>> along the lines of: >>>> >>>> When an upstream node receives a Resv message containing an >> >> s/an/a >> >>>> LABEL object with an OTN-TDM label, the node MUST verify that >>>> the label is acceptable. If the label is not acceptable, the >>>> node MUST generate a ResvErr message with a "Routing >>>> problem/Unacceptable label value" indication. Per [RFC3473], >>>> the generated ResvErr message MAY include an >>>> ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object. With the exception of label >>>> semantics, Downstream node processing a received ResvErr >>>> messages and of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not modified >>>> by this document. >>>> >>>> Similarly, when a downstream node receives a Path message >>>> containing an UPSTREAM_LABEL object with an OTN-TDM label, >>>> the node MUST verify that the label is acceptable. If the >>>> label is not acceptable, the node MUST generate a PathErr >>>> message with a "Routing problem/Unacceptable label value" >>>> indication. Per [RFC3473], the generated ResvErr message MAY >>>> include an ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET object. With the exception >>>> of label semantics, Downstream node processing received >>>> PathErr messages and of ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET objects is not >>>> modified by this document. >>>> >>>> A received label SHALL be considered unacceptable when one of >>>> the following cases occurs: >>>> >>>> - The received label doesn't conform with local policy. >>>> >>> [Fatai] OK. Accept your proposed text. >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Line 730, Drop "As". >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated. >>>>> >>>>> - Section 6.4: Missing conformance language. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Went through and updated. >>>> >>>> New line 660: The procedures are similar to section 6 of [RFC6344]. >>>> >>>> Hereto, If this is the normative section defining required processing, >>>> the procedures need to be spelled out for all required cases or refer to >>>> specific (and unmodified) procedures to follow in a reference document. >>>> So either define the processing or say procures defined in <appropriate >>>> reference> are followed. >>>> >>> [Fatai] OK, I think it is better to say “The procedures MUST follow >>> Section 5 of [RFC6344].” >> >> Are there any procedures defined in section6.3 that differ/add to 6344? >> If I'm not mistaken, the only thing is that ODUflex signal types cannot >> use "multiplication". (Please confirm.) >> >> Assuming I'm correct, how about replacing the contents of the section >> with something along the lines of: >> >> Support for Virtual Concatenation, as defined by [RFC6344], is not >> modified by this document. With the exception of ODUflex signal >> types, signal multiplication as defined in [RFC6344] and [RFC4328]. s/as/is as >> > [Fatai] Right. Will accept your proposed text. great >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Lines 758-759: This reads like an informative statement, but includes >>>>> conformance language. How does a node conform? I suggest rephrasing to >>>>> be clear. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think this section should be revised to ensure that the >>>> responsibilities of each type of processing node (ingress, upstream, >>>> downstream, egress) is clear. >>>> >>>> I guess, we'll have a thread on this section too... >>>> >>> [Fatai] Will refine the text based on your suggestion. >> >> great. >> >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Section 9, should also reference 4328 and cover delta in information >>>>> and added risks. >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated. >>>> >>>> We'll see if this is enough to keep the security reviewers happy... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> - Section 10: This section needs some work. (I'm assuming your familiar >>>>> with rfc5226). >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] Accepted and updated. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Better, but you should at least refer to the existing registries, >> which already includes G-PIDs (see >>>> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xml) >>>> >>>>> - Is it time to create a "Signal Type" registry? >>>>> >>>> [Fatai] We are not sure, because no "Signal Types" have been >> registered in the existing RFCs (like RFC3473, RFC4328..). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think including a request to establish such a registry in this >>>> document would be useful. Is anyone up to proposing the requisite text? >>>> >>> [Fatai] OK to register “Signal Type”. >> >> Is this a question or statement? >> > [Fatai] A statement. I am planning to register “Signal Type”. great. Thanks, Lou > If anyone has any opinion on this point, please share your comments > before I update. >> >> Thanks, >> Lou >> >>>> >>>> Value Signal Type Reference >>>> ----- ----------- --------- >>>> 0 Not significant [this document] >>>> 1 ODU1 (i.e., 2.5 Gbps) [this document] >>>> 2 ODU2 (i.e., 10 Gbps) [this document] >>>> 3 ODU3 (i.e., 40 Gbps) [this document] >>>> 4 ODU4 (i.e., 100 Gbps) [this document] >>>> 5 Reserved (for future use) [this document] >>>> 6 Optical Channel (Och) at 2.5 Gbps [this document] >>>> 7 OCh at 10 Gbps [this document] >>>> 8 OCh at 40 Gbps [this document] >>>> 9 OCh at 100 Gbps [this document] >>>> 10 ODU0 (i.e., 1.25 Gbps) [this document] >>>> 11 ODU2e (i.e., 10Gbps for FC1200 [this document] >>>> and GE LAN) >>>> 12~19 Reserved (for future use) [this document] >>>> 20 ODUflex(CBR) (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) [this document] >>>> 21 ODUflex(Generic Framing [this document] >>>> Procedure-Framed (GFP-F)), >>>> resizable (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) >>>> 22 ODUflex(GFP-F), non resizable [this document] >>>> (i.e., 1.25*N Gbps) >>>> 23~255 Reserved (for future use) [this document] >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Lou >>>> >>>> >>>>> That's it on this document. >>>>> >>>>> Lou >>>>> - >>>> >>
- [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