Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt

Fatai, Authors,

Looks like forward progress, but some comments/questions from the prior
versions are still open:

>From mail I sent off-list:
On 2/17/2013 8:04 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> - It would be good to resolve all warnings. I have to say that I
> always find the IPR related sections to be particularly painful.
> Please review the related portions of Section 2.2. of 
> https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html and verify that you
> (authors and contributors) have complied with the requirements.
> Revise if/how you see necessary.
> 
> - WRT the NVC and MT definitions: Shouldn't their usage with flex
> signal types be defined as flex wasn't supported in 4328 and the data
> plane only allows for a single behavior? (either ignored or must be
> set to 0 and 1, if I understand it correctly.)
> 
> - In a number of places you say "this field is not necessary and MUST
> be set to 0", wouldn't it be better to either just ignore the field
> or treat it as reserved? i.e., either "this field MUST be ignored" or
> "this MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on
> receipt. This field SHOULD be passed unmodified by transit nodes."
> 
> Also don't forget to respond to my open question on the list regarding
> client signals
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14542.html).

>From earlier discussions, WRT:

   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.

Given the defined data plane constraints, is there ever a valid case
where the ResvErr message shouldn't be generated, i.e., is this a SHOULD
or a MUST?

You previously said:
> [Fatai] Accepted and updated.

But this was (and remains) a question, and I don't think there was any
change to the text.

Lou

On 2/21/2013 3:38 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Two major updates that the WG agreed: 
> 
> (1) Kept "Tolerance" field as proposed by Zafar. 
> (2) Removed "N" field for ODUflex(GFP) as we all agreed (ie., crank-back to version 05).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Fatai
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:33 PM
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title           : Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for the evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control
> 	Author(s)       : Fatai Zhang
>                           Guoying Zhang
>                           Sergio Belotti
>                           Daniele Ceccarelli
>                           Khuzema Pithewan
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07.txt
> 	Pages           : 28
> 	Date            : 2013-02-21
> 
> Abstract:
>    ITU-T Recommendation G.709 [G709-2012] has introduced new Optical
>    channel Data Unit (ODU) containers (ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex)
>    and enhanced Optical Transport Networking (OTN) flexibility.
> 
>    This document updates RFC4328 to provide the extensions to the
>    Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling to
>    control the evolving OTN addressing ODUk multiplexing and new
>    features including ODU0, ODU4, ODU2e and ODUflex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-07
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
> 