Re: [CCAMP] Solicit comments on availability WG drafts

Hi Lou,

Please see reply inline. 

BR,
Amy

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 2:58 AM
To: Yemin (Amy); CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Cc: Longhao; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Solicit comments on availability WG drafts

Amy,

On 5/4/2015 2:46 AM, Yemin (Amy) wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Please see my reply below.
>
> For OSPF draft, how about text like this:
> "When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1/LSC (other Switching Capability could also be possible), the Switching Capability specific information field MAY include one or more ISCD Availability sub-TLV(s)."
> The PSC-2/3/4 are removed to align with RFC7074.
Why not just start with "The Switching Capability specific information field MAY ...
[Amy] Good idea. Will update the text.

> For RSVP draft, the technology specific part in the section 1 will be moved to the appendix. The rest part is generic without the technology specific information, I think.  
> And we need input on optical usage. Once we got it, it may goes to the appendix section. Or a separated draft including all the use case might be better?

I think separate generic and technology specific sections make sense. 
I'm not so sure about putting the latter part in appendices, but this can be revisited once the text is there.
[Amy]OK. We will wait the text and make the decision. 

Thanks,
Lou 
>
> BR,
> Amy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:14 PM
> To: Yemin (Amy); CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
> Cc: Longhao; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Solicit comments on availability WG drafts
>
> Hi Amy,
>     If memory serves this dates back to IETF 90.  It would seem to me that the authors could take a pass at suggesting how to generalize or ask the person who proposed it make a proposal.  It doesn't look too hard:
> For the OSPF draft:
>     I think you just need to change the 1st line of 3.2 and drop 
> restriction on types. (BTW I don't think you want to reference 
> deprecated types in general, see RFC7074.)
>
> For the RSVP draft:
>     I think separating out the generic definition of the function and required information from the technology specifics and allowing form multiple technologies , will go a long (if not all the) way to making the solution generic.  Having a second use technology, e.g., optical, defined would be helpful to ensure that the split is right.
>
> Lou
>
> On 4/23/2015 2:54 AM, Yemin (Amy) wrote:
>> Dear CCAMPers,
>>
>>  
>>
>> We would like to solicit comments on the two availability WG drafts:
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-av
>> a
>> ilability/
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-ex
>> t
>> ension/
>>
>>  
>>
>> There were some comments to generalize the draft to optical area.
>> However, how to generalize is still missing.
>>
>> We are looking forward to get more comments on the possible 
>> generalization.
>>
>> Do you think it's worthy to apply the drafts to other area, e.g., 
>> optical? If so, how to generalize?
>>
>>  
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Amy (on behalf of the co-authors)
>>
>>  
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>> *
>> ***************** 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!
>> *********************************************************************
>> *
>> *****************
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>
>