Re: [CCAMP] Question about identities with multiple bases

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Tue, 09 June 2020 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6271E3A0B05; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 03:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=STE30JYJ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=J4pcqnbI
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 UbCKGocjC0lJ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 03:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF35A3A0AFE; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 03:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15268; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1591698690; x=1592908290; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Sw5hJGNVZRqGJJg194xh8v0lnEBPsBwH4EJmM+XHANA=; b=STE30JYJHK1BhgLVCrV1iIOaGkaGHZm9BFojm+0eSOpcZZvkpPKl/Itd aYusRaFH/hdeAobAtjIaYV0sEO+XAeEmq3rdem14SP+3HgUQ0kR7b650f zbo/ka0/6UJhAXlTtiUNyPZktHZMTxEj1MhgDuCtyoa7rA1m23YJHVHSg M=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A8lORcxUcLp/evPP7kvmyqSUStB3V8LGuZFwc94?= =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSBN+BufhYgO3Qta3rRSoL5pPS+HwBcZkZUR?= =?us-ascii?q?gDhI1WmgE7G8eKBAX9K+KidC01GslOFToHt3G2OERYAoDyMlvVpHDh5yIZHR?= =?us-ascii?q?P5OAFpYO/yH92ag8G+zevn/ZrVbk1Bjya8ZrUnKhKwoE3Ru8AajJEkJLw2z0?= =?us-ascii?q?7Co2BDfKJdwmY7KA=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ChBQD+Y99e/5xdJa1dCRwBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?HAQESAQEEBAEBQIFKgVIpKQdvWC8sCoQag0YDjUCYUoFCgRADVQsBAQEMAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?jCgIEAQGERAIXgX4CJDgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYUuBicMhXIBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?SEREMAQEHKQcBCwQCAQgRBAEBAwIjAwICAjAUAQgIAQEEAQkEBQgTB4MFgks?= =?us-ascii?q?DDiABAwulRwKBOYhhdoEygwEBAQWFVhiCDgmBDiqCZIhOgR8agUE/JmoBQ4I?= =?us-ascii?q?fLj6CZwEBgSIOAQgDBgIBIgUQDwYMAoJaM4ItjmMBChIGgweGVJspCoJZiDe?= =?us-ascii?q?LBYJtgn2CaDWIXYx+hVKRA4oAkGGDLwIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaiJmcHAVgyQJRxc?= =?us-ascii?q?CDYdtiFMMF4EDAQKCSYpWdDcCBgEHAQEDCXyMUIE1AYEPAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,491,1583193600"; d="scan'208";a="507783363"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Jun 2020 10:31:29 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (xch-rcd-004.cisco.com [173.37.102.14]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 059AVSGs025392 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:31:29 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 05:31:28 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 05:31:27 -0500
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 06:31:27 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=kDrC6iKS0qYlz9Q8V8kheP/qgZVdfOyJ0bhbLzrGaUX6oisqIrQZ6fPq+pOdBId2gSU4e2x0BQ19LpNJuA9JdZJy6EnkPLSeogyvn4Qt20GbmlZnDl/QCudkkJv/2ORLUGyJExzaJFOftJOQ41zsGBi4cU/CC9VAbssCVySlY/4ujuMcjdREi0eTAmigzgd1m50QzKtt72EWW5i9QUP8IpqC8YQWw8W7EBepqUZMidZrt2f+DR13y0js/4CgaufelI6pNmhc0nz7z6a/Uk809PYavnqIKA/KO+hF7LFB7VBlzJ1SSn8/1LhXYMPKFdMBgGpvhWzovVwLctvRffc2uw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Sw5hJGNVZRqGJJg194xh8v0lnEBPsBwH4EJmM+XHANA=; b=Cj701+4K18ATdl7+TQpQoa7esGobzWtkVtMtFVEFueZ2+a/ZHWCHwcrdlUE2L+6i9j4SRRzjbKXboWpfRpwL7EyfBQ+FMk84wcPzc9xwBSZ8zEbJ4UVySIQsNZOE4pDDq4Py84ymCKMXok3lYne6ZbZAFZvf+maofW4EYQuebHPp7qg8GS6rnoJBDnb05QfIayg1iYRRulPx+VdgE2L2zlXAA2bR0yrCko+M8y9bMbienkQqvtSJixwhdPtIh4/trHYfs+qVFewyvs+qqD/41xhm0IDUEeXJv6jcTk+FCWXa7AtFHgMd3kwcBM3KeW2TREwRmWNH3zQ7Z+H1AG6rHw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Sw5hJGNVZRqGJJg194xh8v0lnEBPsBwH4EJmM+XHANA=; b=J4pcqnbIQ3Y6Sagwzj4/foaZ6yyon6JaUBlPNvnK6zqPVCbMFZ5keKrY495BVmS5S6igUo9lnpnFhmw3Kd4Py4vk0sFQBC1VQZKhCE9A5ss2TiTkQ7Ir8zPNplPHacX87IG7+Eg9UX4o+hL+zYkM642uFEZMTtA29LFaLTu+OzI=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:190::17) by MN2PR11MB3616.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:ed::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3066.20; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:31:24 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e9d4:79b5:aef1:be18]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e9d4:79b5:aef1:be18%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3066.023; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:31:24 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Question about identities with multiple bases
Thread-Index: AdYt/QXkQkytytjGRQiDq8TRiq1jdANKy38BAAjATCAAvdu05QABfaVQ
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:31:24 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB43662723CB160B7FA56918D3B5820@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <c73e49b9141b45e1afaa0b76725141eb@huawei.com> <DBAPR07MB7016CC2892E97DA12094EB61A0860@DBAPR07MB7016.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <MN2PR11MB43669C01061BFF58EB927F5BB5850@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DBAPR07MB70164496BB831C6FA1952FC9A0820@DBAPR07MB7016.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DBAPR07MB70164496BB831C6FA1952FC9A0820@DBAPR07MB7016.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: btconnect.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;btconnect.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [82.15.79.32]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e10c709f-3ab0-4b3c-e7a3-08d80c6042c3
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3616:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB3616022C9349CD528A60973DB5820@MN2PR11MB3616.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 042957ACD7
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: UfZdvcm/pzaObeiboBs9Y0FNzf6ZIS8cg3pWY9d632yX3W6hIpz2FpBna3qwkA+V5yrzytCQHFSpT9vo2sKbnNtkDYkf6hV4H1E/xtz5Aii22XQ1/7zo9ZPmrGYGHS/vYURYWUw1hZDL8RsE2pwXwGXMH+h0Xyeu8gWPVFSzeo+GyNVlj6yN98xFa1eBxwIJr51W3Z89pxCH+CCsmiUUPGftLiZS+DMB1jfLPApWPDUZfvMVWOPV0r27keJqe7qdI18FE24RvkLRhBScYoHSHWl8oVziyXl/bscWN0sD5iS8KChJS6z5h4nmcJE+simzXOd1Jrb4E09VaIiINAmdCq51IRwIFEuTfw/6LwXLeWqZDm3ktoKV6BVlHQANJanuP30zrun0LFMRQx/ldLLsIg/u8hGHqDoRwg86je3nR7Zm7Zfy7zUZLiTazr0nTIQtgFyly80Do30twoMB0SLm2w==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(366004)(136003)(346002)(54906003)(5660300002)(110136005)(33656002)(478600001)(64756008)(66946007)(66556008)(30864003)(83380400001)(8676002)(8936002)(76116006)(316002)(66446008)(66476007)(52536014)(296002)(26005)(86362001)(2906002)(55016002)(4326008)(186003)(53546011)(6506007)(71200400001)(966005)(9686003)(15974865002)(7696005)(473944003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 83k5sa83HTfKHQOBhq4Cm1J7Mm9bsuMg++QSkLfzfmm8B9UXm0i+zLh6yDGU28x7oIaXVsqMY+O4pjNgSSI1ehtyiKP7al8gMxRC2o51WDJ8h4j+RVePaTaMzgQtGX6nk+BBqxbXi7HTEIrBLoWPVPClqyW9tt9DIFd8ocXKAtOe3nZDLR52V5nNNJGnIzsWA+HWLGbhzWLqipzPpa6fpNHC/TKfNRWJpF2VJ6SdxkSujGaEjmk6sVe1xPjdntuDQGIussEvgFGL1dItnvpqtP0nTC0/p42nHQoZkRW6ewT1uW6gj0yZ1u8ADl8AUadyiQo0Ow3WIrHGocH8HGef98roF16FqHNd8gCROrqxH8MJJ3JFfh1mXs/b4dMSqVBbbVXaLSi+pDhu2bsfqM0UGLa7drDLFJOIZcZWbbwi/w6WWjQaMUvMDPEQ0DNyQ+AUZF1MXUZYQ63Z69+Jk5wwieP4W6p15MoalfeABz1cQhM=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e10c709f-3ab0-4b3c-e7a3-08d80c6042c3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Jun 2020 10:31:24.8534 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 2YTng2V+kk3jaG6hwScJ6QMGHtQQSlLs0qHtvcB1GN/8MyXqi2FJBHx2x1hVV0a+51C3PwDgInNqF8VVXmQr+w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3616
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.14, xch-rcd-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/BzCdwr68dVGWfq4ggMWVB-Lk5iA>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question about identities with multiple bases
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:31:34 -0000

Hi Tom,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> Sent: 09 June 2020 10:56
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>om>; Italo Busi
> <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> ccamp-layer1-types@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Question about identities with multiple bases
> 
> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>
> Sent: 08 June 2020 18:06
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Apologies for the delayed reply.
> 
> Tom, I would be interested if you can provide your feedback on the quirks
> in the English.  It would be useful to get them fixed/tweaked now rather
> than later in the process.
> 
> Some thoughts of the main question regarding multiple base identities:
> 
> I think that you might be using base identities in two different ways
> here.  One of those seems reasonable, the other, I'm not so sure about.
> 
> The first way, that I think is reasonable, is if you want to tag a subset
> of identities that all derive from a common base as having the same
> property.
> E.g. if you have lots of identities that derive from "client-signal", then
> it might be reasonable to group a subset of them as also deriving from the
> "Ethernet" base identity.  In this scenario, the set of identities that
> derive from "Ethernet" would be a subset of identities that derive from
> "client-signal".  I have no issues with this approach and have considering
> using this formulation myself.
> 
> The second way, that I'm not convinced by, is where I think that you are
> trying to share the same identity in different sets (e.g. client-signal vs
> coding-func).  In this case, I think that it would be much better to
> define separate identities, either by prefixing the name of the set in the
> identity name (to make the names unique), or perhaps more cleanly by
> putting them in separate YANG source files, where the module name/prefix
> can be used to use the same textual identity name different scoped names.
> 
> <tp>
> Rob
> I posted separately to Italo that I do not know the requirements and want
> to:-)
> 
> Looking at MEF 63, publicly available, it defines Client Protocol
> (Ethernet, FC, STM, SONET); Coding Function and Optical Interface
> Function.  For each Client Protocol it lists valid combinations of the
> three values, 13 for Ethernet, 10 for FC, 42 for SDH, 49 for SONET so you
> have a large, three dimensional sparse matrix so it might be good to model
> which  values are valid, be that as Boolean, identity or whatever. For
> SONET, the number of Optical Interface Function is limited, for SDH it is
> not.  How do you model a 3-D sparse matrix in YANG?  But I would wait for
> more clarity on the requirements before putting too much thought into that
> question, I might be off the mark..
[RW] 

Ah, that is interesting, and different from what I was imagining.

Without knowing the details, then using different bases to represent the different axis of a sparse 3D array seems like it could be a reasonable way of modelling this.  Once we get more information on the requirements then I can copy the YANG doctors alias in, to see if there are other opinions.

Thanks,
Rob


> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further discussion, perhaps involving the YANG doctors' alias might be
> helpful.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> Sent: 05 June 2020 12:11
> To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>om>; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> <rwilton@cisco.com>
> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-
> ccamp-layer1-types@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Question about identities with multiple bases
> 
> From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Italo Busi
> <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
> Sent: 19 May 2020 17:49
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> We have discussed an open issue with the ietf-l1csm which is impacting the
> ietf-layer1-types YANG model, for which we are addressing CCAMP WG LC
> comments
> 
> See slides 3 and 4 of the attached presentation made during the CCAMP WG
> virtual meeting last week
> 
> Since we have not much experience with identities having multiple bases,
> we would like to get a feedbacks from you about whether the proposed
> solution would work
> <tp>
> Italo
> 
> I have not seen a response to your question.  I had a look and it seems ok
> but like you I do not see much of this construct in IETF modules.
> 
> So while it may be ok, that does make me wonder; is this approach too
> complicated?  If you and I are uncertain about it, then what about future
> users - will they be comfortable with it?  I had to look up which Boolean
> operator applied with multiple bases!
> 
> Separately, having persuaded my obstructionist ESP to let me send an e-
> mail, I see a number of quirks in the English of layer1-types.  Are you
> interested in hearing about them? (assuming that my ESP lets me:-)
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> You can check initial changes to ETH-1GbE, FICON-4G and STM-1 identities
> in github:
> 
> https://github.com/haomianzheng/IETF-ACTN-YANG-Model/pull/65
> 
> Let me report here the key ones:
> 
>   identity ETH-1Gb {
>     base client-signal;
>     description
>       "Client signal type of 1GbE";
>     reference "RFC7139/ITU-T G.709";
>   }
> 
>   identity FICON-4G {
>     base client-signal;
>     description
>       "Client signal type of Fibre Connection 4G";
>     reference "RFC4328/RFC7139";
>   }
> 
>   identity ETH-1000X {
>     base "coding-func";
>     base Ethernet;
>     description
>       "1000BASE-X PCS clause 36 coding function.";
>     reference "MEF63: Subscriber Layer 1 Service Attributes";
>   }
> 
>   identity STM-1 {
>     base client-signal;
>     base "coding-func";
>     base SDH;
>     description
>       "STM-1 client signal;
>        STM-1 G.707 (N=1) coding function.";
>     reference
>       "RFC7139/ITU-T G.709
>        MEF63: Subscriber Layer 1 Service Attributes";
>   }
> 
>               leaf client-signal {
>                 type identityref {
>                   base "l1-types:client-signal";
>                 }
>                 mandatory true;
>                 description
>                   "The client signal being used at the UNI";
>               }
> 
> Then ETH-1GbE, FICON-4G and STM-1 would be valid configuration for the
> client-signa leaf, while ETH-1000X will not be valid
> 
>     leaf coding {
>       type identityref {
>         base "l1-types:coding-func";
>       }
>       must 'derived-from(../coding, ../protocol)';
>       mandatory true;
>       description "The coding function being used at the UNI.";
>     }
> 
> Then:
> - ETH-1000X would be valid configuration of the coding leaf, if Ethernet
> is configured, otherwise it is invalid;
> - STM-1 would be valid configuration of the coding leaf, if SDH is
> configure as protocol, otherwise it is invalid;
> - ETH-1GbE and FICON-4G would never be valid configuration of the coding
> leaf
> 
> Before applying these changes to a lot of identities, it would be good to
> check that our understanding is correct
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Italo
> 
> Italo Busi
> Principal Optical Transport Network Research Engineer
> 
> [cid:image001.jpg@01D5AC11.9575BB40]
> ____________________________________________________________________
> 
> Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l.
> Address: Centro Direzionale Milano 2, Palazzo Verrocchio, 20090 Segrate
> (MI)
> Tel: +39 345 4721946 - Mobile:
> Italo.busi@huawei.com<mailto:Italo.busi@huawei.com>
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> ________
> Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l. is a company registered in Italy at the
> Company Registration Office of Milan, with registered number 04501190963
> and equity capital €3,000,000 fully paid up, whose registered office is in
> Milan, Via Lorenteggio 240, Tower A, 20147 Milan, Italy. Huawei
> Technologies Italia S.r.l. is 100% owned by Huawei Technologies
> Cooperatief U.A.
> CONAI Reg. No. cc 12639454 - A.E.E. Registry No. IT10010000006521 -
> Batteries and Accumulators Registry No. IT12050P00002839.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________
> 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! Thank you.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------
> PRIVACY NOTICE: Pursuant to Art. 13 of the General Data Protection
> Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR), Huawei Technologies Italia S.r.l. informs you
> that the personal data contained in this email will be collected and
> treated for the acquisition of information preliminary to the conclusion
> of contracts, for the definition of the contractual relationship, as well
> as for the fulfillment of legal requirements related to civil, tax and
> accounting law or any other legal obligation to which Huawei may be
> subject. Personal data will not be subject to disclosure and spread unless
> otherwise required by law. Huawei will take appropriate security measures
> to protect personal data against loss, misuse disclosure or destruction of
> the information. Personal Data held may be transferred to countries
> outside the European Union, however Huawei Italia has put in place
> appropriate safeguards for the transfer of personal data to third
> countries by adopting the standard data protection clauses of the EU
> Commission. Personal Data are kept for a period necessary for the
> fulfillment of contract obligations unless otherwise required by law. You
> can exercise your rights under Art. 15 and following of the GDPR (i.e.
> right of access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, object)
> by contacting Huawei at this email address:
> dataprotection@huawei.com<mailto:dataprotection@huawei.com> or through the
> following channel: www.huawei.com/en/personal-data-
> request<http://www.huawei.com/en/personal-data-request>st>. You have also the
> right to lodge a complaint with the competent supervisory authorities. If
> you need any further information or have any queries on how Huawei process
> your personal data, please send an email to our Data Protection Officer at
> dpo@huawei.com<mailto:dpo@huawei.com>.The Data Controller is Huawei
> Technologies Italia S.r.l. with registered office in Milan, Via
> Lorenteggio 240 Tower A, 20147.
>