Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 23 January 2015 17:24 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADF11ABD36 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:24:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_BIZ=0.288, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XuquAFnSdtUQ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from newdragon.webhostserver.biz (newdragon.webhostserver.biz [69.25.136.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB5881A886D for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:38918) by newdragon.webhostserver.biz with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1YEhyE-0005Li-3J; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 20:24:34 +0300
Message-ID: <54C283CD.7030003@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 12:24:29 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)'" <giomarti@cisco.com>
References: <006901d0371a$9e1f1960$da5d4c20$@olddog.co.uk> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C7E09C@dfweml706-chm>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C7E09C@dfweml706-chm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - newdragon.webhostserver.biz
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: newdragon.webhostserver.biz: authenticated_id: lberger@blabn.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/8ShDc9HvzgF2dpSbhWvxiQBMew8>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:24:48 -0000
On 1/23/2015 12:17 PM, Leeyoung wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Adrian for taking this on. > > My preference is Option 1. Thanks Young. My memory is that this was the intent of the WG at the time this point was discussed. So, I also prefer/support option 1. Lou > It would be hard to catch moving target around this area if we were to take Option 2. > > Thanks, > Young > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 8:41 AM > To: 'Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)' > Cc: Leeyoung; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode > > Hi, > > I appreciate this discussion, but I am not seeing a specific conclusion from it. > > The current I-D makes (IMHO) the Vendor-Specific Application Code unusable. I > offered three options: > > 1 This value is only to be used when it is known that all devices > participating in a network have the same understanding of > the content of the Vendor-Specific Application Code field. > How this knowledge is achieved is outside the scope of this > document > > 2 When this value is set, the first 32 (or 48) bits of the Vendor- > Specific Application Code field contain an Enterprise Number > (or OUI) that defines the context in which the remainder of > that field is interpreted. > > 3 Remove the option to include a Vendor-Specific Application > Code field. > > If the WG could please pick one of these and help Young to update the document. > > Thanks, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) [mailto:giomarti@cisco.com] >> Sent: 23 January 2015 13:50 >> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk >> Cc: Leeyoung; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org; >> ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode >> >> One additional comment (hoping not additional confusion). >> >> The idea about Optical Interface Class was taken from SRLG. Good or bad is a >> plain number and you do simple operations on it. >> >> Cheers >> G >> >> On 22 Jan 2015, at 09:42, Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) <giomarti@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Adrian, >>> >>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 22:55, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Well, you seem to have a half-way house. >>>> >>>> You have specified the existence of a thing, but not how to read it. >>>> >>>> If you wanted to make a statement that this object will only be used when > it is >>>> known that all systems in a network come from the same vendor and/or have >> the >>>> same understanding of the encoding, that might be OK (although how you >> would >>>> ascertain this might also need to be described). >>>> >>> The statement is to ensure the interface compatibility without encoding all > the >> possible details and parameter that define an interface (e.g. modulation > format, >> forward error correction etc.). This was the initial solution in the draft > then >> replaced by the interface class concept. The WSON (RWA-only) has the >> requirement is to make sure two interface are compatible. This requirement, >> imho, can be satisfy by a simple comparison which has a boolean result. >>> We end up then in the ITU application codes for the "certified" (we'll this > is my >> term not 100% sure is the best one) compatibility where proper encoding is >> provided. >>> >>>> Or you could entirely remove the vendor-specific option. >>>> >>>> Or you could put in an OUI / enterprise number followed by transparent >> bytes. >>> To me I'm perfectly fine with the second option. >>> >>> Cheers >>> G >>> >>> >>>> Adrian >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) [mailto:giomarti@cisco.com] >>>>> Sent: 21 January 2015 21:22 >>>>> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk >>>>> Cc: Leeyoung; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org; >>>>> ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode >>>>> >>>>> Specifically to the Interface class here below. >>>>> >>>>> In the initial draft merged to this one there was the usage of OUI however > (I >>>>> guess after chatting with Lou) we decided to remove any encoding when the >>>>> Interface class is not standard. >>>>> In term of semantic the protcol does not need to decode the Interface > class >>>> since >>>>> it only assess the interface compatibility if two interfaces has a class > value >>>> that >>>>> match two interfaces cann be connected. >>>>> >>>>> Having saying that I don't have strong opinion in adding the OUI or > leaving >>>> room >>>>> for maybe future public interfaces database. For sure there's a need to > leave >>>>> room for specific compatibility assesment since there optical multivendor >>>>> compatibility has been already demonstrated. >>>>> >>>>> hope this help . >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> G >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 21:57, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Section 4.1 >>>>>>>> How do I interpret a Vendor-Specific Application Code? Is there an OUI >>>>>>>> I'm missing? >>>>>>> [YOUNG] Not sure if I understood this question. What is "OUI"? >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizationally_unique_identifier >>>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802- >>>>> numbers.xhtml#ieee-802 >>>>>> -numbers-2 >>>>>> >>>>>> Or perhaps an Enterprise Number >>>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/enterprise- >> numbers >>>>>> The question is: >>>>>> >>>>>> You have sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4 to tell me how to interpret the >>>> Optical >>>>>> Interface Class field when it contains an ITU-T Application Mapping. >>>>>> When I received s=0 and OI=1 it means that the Optical Interface Class >>>> contains >>>>>> a "Vendor Specific Optical Interface Class". >>>>>> How do I interpret that Optical Interface Class? >>>>>> Which vendor does it apply to? >>>>>> Is there some information elsewhere that gives me a clue as to which >> vendor >>>>> has >>>>>> encoded the information? >>>>>> Or is the information supposed to be encoded in the Optical Interface > Class, >>>>>> perhaps as the first 48 bits? >>>>>> Or am I supposed to know by context? > _______________________________________________ > CCAMP mailing list > CCAMP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >
- [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Varma, Eve L (Eve)
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in d… Adrian Farrel