Re: [CCAMP] Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-08: priority

Hi Young,

thx for the prompt reply

On Aug 2, 2012, at 24:25 , Leeyoung wrote:

> Hi Giovanni,
> 
> The wavelength priority you propose seems different from the what we encoded per Rao Rajan's suggestion. What we encoded in section 2.3 of gen encode is not giving wavelength a priority level, among which I believe your wavelength property specifies.
> 
> What we are proposing is what labels are available/not available for each priority level (similar to LSP reservation or holding priority) as the following encoding dictates: 
> 

GM> So at the end is a "Label Priority" ? With the Label_Set granularity instead of the single Label?  

>    0                   1                   2                   3
>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |A| Reserved    | Priority Flags|        Reserved               |
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>     |                           Label Set Field                     |
>     :                                                               :
>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>   Where
> 
>   A (Availability bit) = 1 or 0 indicates that the labels listed in
>   the following label set field are available or not available,
>   respectively, for use at a given priority level as indicated by the
>   Priority Flags.

GM> The reading here suggest me that there could be multiple objects (I bet up to 8) packed up somewere (e.g. something like sub-tlvs in the link advertisement). Is my interpretation correct?

Cheers
G

> 
>   Priority Flags: Bit 8 corresponds to priority level 0 and bit 15
>   corresponds to priority level 7. If a bit is set then the labels in
>   the label set field are available or not available as indicated by
>   the A bit for use at that particular priority level.
> 
> Let's begin if we are in agreement with this point. 
> 
> Thanks.
> Young
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 12:40 PM
> To: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
> Cc: CCAMP
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-08: priority
> 
> Here my latest mail  with comments on wavelength priority... 
> 
> Here my memory on past discussion (please correct if wrong)
> - last short thread was during ieft83 (around 26/28 march), last mail was from me and did not get answers. The content here below cover that mail as well.
> - discussions about wl priority happens among authors not on ccamp mailing list. On the mailing list you announce draft update around dec 2011.  
> 
> Well, I'm not complaining about how discussion happen, simply I saw  a not-trivial addition to wg document, hence my comments.
> 
> Cheers
> G
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 31, 2012, at 24:34 , Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) wrote:
> 
>> Dear authors / ccamp,
>> 
>> here a few comments related to the priority field added to draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode:
>> 
>> A couple of editorial comments
>> 1)  "wavelenght priority" appears in a draft that claim to be general. In fact is available in "Available Labels Sub-TLV" and "Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV". So is a wavelength or label-like priority?
>> 2)  why an 8 bits (bit field) instead of the classic 3 bits (integer [0 .. 7]?
>> 
>> 
>> Then few other comments
>> 3)  How the priority is used versus the A flag . Draft text report
>> "  
>>  A (Availability bit) = 1 or 0 indicates that the labels listed in
>>  the following label set field are available or not available,
>>  respectively, for use at a given priority level as indicated by the
>>  Priority Flags.
>> 
>> "
>> So does it means that there could be different "available labels sub-TLVs" advertised? 
>> 
>> 4) Still unclear to me how this priority is different from the one reported in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kattan-wson-property-01 and eventually if this "priority" could fit the LSP priority already available (as one of the comment we received at that time)
>> 
>> Cheers
>> G
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp