Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

"Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <> Wed, 21 January 2015 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EC81A887E for <>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:22:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PbaSezX1fAfs for <>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98D1B1A887A for <>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:22:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2039; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1421875321; x=1423084921; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=c0y5nWqg7ua3jSjz/kKan0ONhcEWq6U6tERe7YbXBgs=; b=by4FWfZ8Gh7IO/kEBHipa3WVNI0Qs/znoeSyLePjRMbfO3xJGhlGjhxE Ahi6D/WOnVdMmmSe2Gfv4zoj9zfCuRq9voQOmdUYPILDHV8Z62TpiyS2B DCqv4zeSrBCByQ50eLLjwoHr1YCiY0c/dXRYuOhFSm5RsamyIqjsCRKIj s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,444,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="116121342"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2015 21:22:00 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0LLM0C6027683 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:22:00 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:22:00 -0600
From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
Thread-Index: AQGuBc8fgeeljdJ0ZqOUd7m3it/ADQJ3wIujnPuGDVCAAJV6gA==
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:21:59 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <00dd01d026c8$c3bd9280$4b38b780$> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C71AC5@dfweml706-chm> <02f401d035bc$efc05ef0$cf411cd0$>
In-Reply-To: <02f401d035bc$efc05ef0$cf411cd0$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:22:03 -0000

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 …


On 21 Jan 2015, at 21:57, Adrian Farrel <> 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"?
> -numbers-2
> Or perhaps an Enterprise Number
> 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?