Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing G.709 open issues)
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 24 May 2013 13:15 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 AB42F21F8609 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.437, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4VdS+-3-mjpF for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy13-pub.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy13-pub.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.16.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B35B21F85EF for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28394 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2013 13:15:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy13.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 24 May 2013 13:15:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=8M2UAN3GdiHHnMnk3dfkmshcZchkierrzpZbjfOzDhE=; b=g8O2LwCe0I4qhBorFlUcqLpDsUfRuF00EgTb+kMLzaaiHASC21EV8Mk1jAfKYjElnN7t6Y8ZzaNHIhmrwFruH48n+o6qWignV7ZhqDj3Y/mv/w4jQkgM+lSeI7bfISYX;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:53597 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UfrqA-0002yS-1c; Fri, 24 May 2013 07:15:26 -0600
Message-ID: <519F67ED.3040701@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 09:15:25 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
References: <518A82D9.7080508@labn.net> <518CED28.30303@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B943@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <B9FEE68CE3A78C41A2B3C67549A96F4802BCBD@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317BEA2@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <51924382.2010904@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C90D5@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <13ea7ed3bdd.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <B9FEE68CE3A78C41A2B3C67549A96F4802C534@FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <5193A26A.1090005@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317D2BA@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <519649B4.5060408@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319607D@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei. com> <519B73C9.2030308@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319B82E@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawe i.com> <519E406C.9030008@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319BFF2@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319BFF2@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing G.709 open issues)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 24 May 2013 13:15:52 -0000
Fatai, Just to be clear, the following covers your correction: G.709 Payload Type G-PID Type/Comment LSP Encoding ==== ===== ============== =================== 0x05 TBA1 Framed GFP G.709 ODUk 54 Ethernet MAC G.709 ODUk (framed GFP) Right? Thanks, Lou On 5/23/2013 9:01 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote: > Hi Lou, > > Fine, thanks for your explanation. > > As I said, I will update the signaling draft based on your proposal if there are no further comments. > > > > Best Regards > > Fatai > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:15 AM > To: Fatai Zhang > Cc: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing G.709 open issues) > > Fatai, > Do we really need to reopen debate on a topic the WG discussed and > closed last summer? (i.e., to handle G.709 client adaptation just as we > do for every other technology.) > > I do agree that some new G-PID assignments were missed in the draft that > went to LC, but filling in the list doesn't automatically mean that the > WG needs to reopen debate on adaptation approaches. > > Assuming we don't need to reopen the pre-LC debate from last summer, and > with respect to the list I sent out, I do agree the WG needs to: > > A) Ensure that the list doesn't have unneeded new G-PIDs (i.e., reuses > the same/existing G-PIDs wherever possible.) > > B) Identifies the "right" G-PID per payload type, and doesn't have any > other technical errors > > C) Doesn't conflict with past WG decisions/discussions. > >>From your mails I see the following comment on (A): > >> For 0x05, why you think that RFC4328 does not cover it (ie., G-PID=54)? > > G-PID 54, per IANA, is currently defined as "Ethernet MAC (framed GFP)". > Per G.709, PT=0x05 maps to "GFP mapping, see clause 17.4" and looking > at 17.4 there is no restriction on what is carried in GFP frames. So it > seems that PT=0x05 can't be limited to just "Ethernet MAC (framed GFP)". > > Are you suggesting changing the type description of G-PID 54 to just > "Framed GFP", or including G-PID 54 as an additional possibility for > PT=0x05? > > The latter seems to be a valid addition/correction. The former may be > problematic for existing implementations, so we'll need to discuss more > broadly if that's the direction you want to head. > > All/ (WG), > > Again, please speak up if you think the above is not aligned with prior > consensus or if you have an issue with any of the above. > > Lou > > On 5/22/2013 10:35 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >> Hi Lou, >> >> >> >> I incorporated your proposal into my table to facilitate the readers. >> >> >> >> I think you still insist on reusing some existing G-PIDs like 58, 56. >> For 0x04, why you think that RFC4328 does not cover it (ie., G-PID=54)? >> >> >> >> Technically, I am not convince by your proposal, but I would like to >> reserve my opinion for your same motivation (ie., to conclude the >> discussion as soon as possible). >> >> >> >> Any opinions on Lou's proposal from the WG? I will update the signaling >> draft based on Lou's proposal if there is no comment on Lou's proposal. >> >> >> >> Note that all the new G-PID values will be re-ordered with TBA. >> >> >> >> *G-PIDs vs **Payload types defined in Table 15-8 of G.709* >> >> >> >> Payload Type in Hex codedefined in G.709 >> >> >> >> G-PID >> >> >> >> LSP Encoding >> >> >> >> Note >> >> >> >> Interpretationfrom G.709 >> >> 0x01 >> >> >> >> None >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not needed >> >> >> >> Experimental mapping (Note 3) >> >> 0x02 >> >> >> >> 49 >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk, G.709 OCh >> >> >> >> 1)G-PID defined in RFC4328; >> >> 2) Updated in this draft. >> >> >> >> Asynchronous CBR mapping, see clause 17.2 >> >> 0x03 >> >> >> >> 50 >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> Bit synchronous CBR mapping, see clause 17.2 >> >> 0x04 >> >> >> >> 32 >> >> >> >> SDH, G.709 ODUk >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> ATM mapping, see clause 17.3 >> >> 0x05 >> >> >> >> 54 >> >> or >> >> TBA (Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (and SDH) >> >> >> >> >> >> G-PIDs defined in RFC4328 for framed GFP >> >> >> >> >> >> GFP mapping, see clause 17.4 >> >> 0x06 >> >> >> >> None >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not needed and Not defined in RFC4328 >> >> >> >> Virtual Concatenated signal, see clause 18 (Note 5) >> >> 0x07 >> >> >> >> 61(TBA) >> >> Or55(Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=0,3,4) >> >> >> >> Is being defined in this draft (new payload type defined in [G.709-2012]) >> >> >> >> PCS codeword transparent Ethernet mapping: >> >> * 1000BASE-X into OPU0, see clauses 17.7.1 and 17.7.1.1 >> >> * 40GBASE-R into OPU3, see clauses 17.7.4 and 17.7.4.1 >> >> * 100GBASE-R into OPU4, see clauses 17.7.5 and 17.7.5.1 >> >> 0x08 >> >> >> >> 62(TBA) >> >> Or58(Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=2e) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> FC-1200 into OPU2e mapping, see clause 17.8.2 >> >> 0x09 >> >> >> >> 63(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=2) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> GFP mapping into Extended OPU2 payload, see clause 17.4.1 (Note 6) >> >> 0x0A >> >> >> >> 64(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> STM-1 mapping into OPU0, see clause 17.7.1 >> >> 0x0B >> >> >> >> 65(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> STM-4 mapping into OPU0, see clause 17.7.1 >> >> 0x0C >> >> >> >> 66(TBA) >> >> Or58(Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> FC-100 mapping into OPU0, see clause 17.7.1 >> >> 0x0D >> >> >> >> 67(TBA) >> >> Or58(Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=1) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> FC-200 mapping into OPU1, see clause 17.7.2 >> >> 0x0E >> >> >> >> 68(TBA) >> >> Or58(Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUflex >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> FC-400 mapping into OPUflex, see clause 17.9 >> >> 0x0F >> >> >> >> 69(TBA) >> >> Or58(Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUflex >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> FC-800 mapping into OPUflex, see clause 17.9 >> >> 0x10 >> >> >> >> 51 >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk >> >> >> >> 1)G-PID defined in RFC4328; >> >> 2) Updated in this draft. >> >> >> >> Bit stream with octet timing mapping, see clause 17.6.1 >> >> 0x11 >> >> >> >> 52 >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> Bit stream without octet timing mapping, see clause 17.6.2 >> >> 0x12 >> >> >> >> 70(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUflex >> >> >> >> Is being defined in this draft (new payload type defined in [G.709-2012]) >> >> >> >> IB SDR mapping into OPUflex, see 17.9 >> >> 0x13 >> >> >> >> 71(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUflex >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> IB DDR mapping into OPUflex, see 17.9 >> >> 0x14 >> >> >> >> 72(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUflex >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> IB QDR mapping into OPUflex, see 17.9 >> >> 0x15 >> >> >> >> 73(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> SDI mapping into OPU0, see 17.7.1 >> >> 0x16 >> >> >> >> 74(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=1) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> (1.485/1.001) Gbit/s SDI mapping into OPU1, see 17.7.2 >> >> 0x17 >> >> >> >> 75(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=1) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> 1.485 Gbit/s SDI mapping into OPU1, see 17.7.2 >> >> 0x18 >> >> >> >> 76(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUflex >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> (2.970/1.001) Gbit/s SDI mapping into OPUflex, see 17.9 >> >> 0x19 >> >> >> >> 77(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUflex >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> 2.970 Gbit/s SDI mapping into OPUflex, see 17.9 >> >> 0x1A >> >> >> >> 78(TBA) >> >> Or56(Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> SBCON/ESCON mapping into OPU0, see 17.7.1 >> >> 0x1B >> >> >> >> 79(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> >> >> ditto >> >> >> >> DVB_ASI mapping into OPU0, see 17.7.1 >> >> 0x20 >> >> >> >> 47 >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk >> >> >> >> 1) G-PIDs defined in RFC4328. >> >> 2) Updated in this draft. >> >> >> >> ODU multiplex structure supporting ODTUjk only, see clause 19 (AMP only) >> >> 0x21 >> >> >> >> 59/60(TBA) >> >> >> >> G.709 ODUk >> >> >> >> 1)Are being defined in this draft (new payload type defined in >> [G.709-2012]); >> >> 2) 59 for G.709 ODU-1.25G; 60 for G.709 ODU-any >> >> >> >> ODU multiplex structure supporting ODTUk.ts or ODTUk.ts and ODTUjk, see >> clause 19 (GMP capable) (Note 7) >> >> 55 >> >> >> >> None >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not needed >> >> >> >> Not available (Note 2) >> >> 66 >> >> >> >> None >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not needed >> >> >> >> Not available (Note 2) >> >> 80-8F >> >> >> >> None >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not needed >> >> >> >> Reserved codes for proprietary use (Note 4) >> >> FD >> >> >> >> None >> >> OrTBA(Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not needed >> >> >> >> NULL test signal mapping, see clause 17.5.1 >> >> FE >> >> >> >> None >> >> OrTBA(Suggested by Lou) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not needed >> >> >> >> PRBS test signal mapping, see clause 17.5.2 >> >> FF >> >> >> >> None >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not needed >> >> >> >> Not available (Note 2) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> Fatai >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> Of Lou Berger >> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:17 PM >> To: CCAMP >> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing G.709 open issues) >> >> >> >> All, >> >> >> >> In the interest of moving this discussion quickly to closure, I spent >> >> some time trying to come up with the full list of G.709 PT to G-PID >> >> mappings. In coming up with this list I tried to be consistent with >> >> the last consensus point that I can identify on this topic (the >> >> previously referenced July 2012 thread & presentation), which included: >> >> >> >> A) Defining new G-PIDs for client types not identified by an assigned >> >> G-PID (per >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xml) >> >> >> >> B) Reusing G-PID wherever {G-PID, ODU rate} unambiguously identify a >> >> G.709 payload type, and define new G-PIDs when reuse not possible. >> >> >> >> C) No G-PID value for unused, reserved, or proprietary 709 Payload Type. >> >> >> >> Here's what I've come up with: >> >> >> >> G.709 >> >> Payload >> >> Type G-PID Type/Comment LSP Encoding >> >> ==== ===== ============== =================== >> >> 0x01 No standard value >> >> 0x02 49 CBRa G.709 ODUk >> >> 0x03 50 CBRb G.709 ODUk >> >> 0x04 32 ATM G.709 ODUk >> >> 0x05 TBA1 Framed GFP G.709 ODUk >> >> 0x06 ??? Is any valued needed? >> >> 0x07 55 Ethernet PHY G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> (transparent G.709 ODUk (k=3) >> >> GFP) G.709 ODUk (k=4) >> >> 0x08 58 Fiber Channel G.709 ODUk (k=2e) >> >> 0x09 TBA1 Framed GFP G.709 ODUk (k=2e) >> >> 0x0A TBA2 STM-1 G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> 0x0B TBA3 STM-4 G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> 0x0C 58 Fiber Channel G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> 0x0D 58 Fiber Channel G.709 ODUk (k=1) >> >> 0x0E 58 Fiber Channel G.709 ODUflex >> >> 0x0F 58 Fiber Channel G.709 ODUflex >> >> 0x10 51 BSOT G.709 ODUk >> >> 0x11 52 BSNT G.709 ODUk >> >> 0x12 TBA4 InfiniBand G.709 ODUflex >> >> 0x13 TBA4 InfiniBand G.709 ODUflex >> >> 0x14 TBA4 InfiniBand G.709 ODUflex >> >> 0x15 TBA5 Serial Digital G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> Interface >> >> 0x16 TBA6 Serial Digital G.709 ODUk (k=1) >> >> Interface/1.001 >> >> 0x17 TBA5 Serial Digital G.709 ODUk (k=1) >> >> Interface >> >> 0x18 TBA6 Serial Digital G.709 ODUflex >> >> Interface/1.001 >> >> 0x19 TBA5 Serial Digital G.709 ODUflex >> >> Interface >> >> 0x1A 56 SBCON/ESCON G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> (IANA to update Type field) >> >> 0x1B TBA7 DVB_ASI G.709 ODUk (k=0) >> >> 0x1C 58 Fiber Channel G.709 ODUk >> >> 0x20 47 G.709 ODU-2.5G G.709 ODUk >> >> (k=2,3) >> >> (IANA to update Type field) >> >> TBA8 G.709 ODU-1.25G G.709 ODUk >> >> (k=1,2,3) >> >> 0x21 TBA8 G.709 ODU-1.25G G.709 ODUk >> >> (k=2,3,4) >> >> TBA9 G.709 ODU-Any G.709 ODUk >> >> (k=2,3) >> >> 0x55 No standard value >> >> 0x66 No standard value >> >> 0x80-0x8F No standard value >> >> 0xFD TBA10 Null Test G.709 ODUk >> >> 0xFE TBA11 Random Test G.709 ODUk >> >> 0xFF No standard value >> >> >> >> Note that there are a few differences with Fatai's list, which doesn't >> >> format well in e-mail, but is available in the archive >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14845.html >> >> >> >> Please speak up if you think the above is not aligned with prior >> >> consensus or if you have an issue with any of the above. >> >> >> >> Much thanks, >> >> Lou >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5/20/2013 5:09 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote: >> >>> Hi Lou, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I think my mail on March 13rd may have answered your following comments. >> >>> My response quoted as follows. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> In addition, if people look at the full list that I provided, I think >> >>> people can realize that RFC4328 (section 3.1.3) used the same approach >> >>> as the current approach of this draft (ie., 1:1 mapping between GPIDs >> >>> and payload types defined by G.709), ie., we are following what RFC4328 >> >>> did. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> BTW, I am not sure if we need spend so much on discussing this point >> >>> (because there is no issue to stick to the data plane by using the >> >>> current approach of this draft). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ====================================================================================================================== >> >>> >> >>> (2) 'Grouped GPID' vs '1:1' mapping (between G.709-2012 and GPIDs >> >>> defined in this draft) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> We realize that it is safe to use 1:1 mapping approach to avoid some >> >>> potential issues after investigation. We know this payload types have >> >>> been defined by G.709 (data plane), so physically it is better to use >> >>> 1:1 mapping approach. >> >>> >> >>> For the potential issues I mentioned above, for example, we cannot use >> >>> the existing 34 to represent 'STM-1' and 'STM-4 ', because it is >> >>> impossible to differentiate which one is 'STM-1' or 'STM-4'. In >> >>> addition, from the concept of payload type, we know that e.g, FC-100 is >> >>> different from FC-800, right? So, it is better to assign different GPIDs >> >>> to these different payload types defined by the data plane. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Furthermore, I think it is much cheaper to create new GPIDs in the >> >>> control plane than in the data plane (these payload types will be >> >>> carried in the OH). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Best Regards >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Fatai >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >> >>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 11:16 PM >> >>> To: Fatai Zhang >> >>> Cc: BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP; >> >>> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org >> >>> Subject: Re: R: Closing G.709 open issues >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Fatai, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> That's a great start for the WG. Thank you. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> To answer your implied question as to why my request for the full list. >> >>> >> >>> My feeling is that there have been too many "surprises" on the 709 >> >>> >> >>> documents in areas that I thought were either obvious (but from the IETF >> >>> >> >>> & GMPLS context, not ITU-T or G.709 perspectives) or resolved by past >> >>> >> >>> discussions. At this point, as co-chair and Document shepherd, I want >> >>> >> >>> to ensure that any open point on the documents are unambiguously closed >> >>> >> >>> and that past discussions (i.e., points of consensus) are 100% captured, >> >>> >> >>> so that we can smoothly move through the planned second LC and >> >>> >> >>> publication request. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> To that end, in my previous message I asked two questions about points >> >>> >> >>> where it seems you are proposing moving away from what has been >> >>> >> >>> previously been discussed & agreed to by the WG. Can you answer the >> >>> >> >>> following: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>> My questions on the new G-PIDs come down to: >> >>> >> >>>>> - Why are rate specific G-PIDs being proposed (rather than >> >>> >> >>>>> continuing to use the previous approach documented in the draft >> >>> >> >>>>> and in Section 3.1.3 of rfc4328)? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>> - Why are new values being defined rather than using existing >> >>> >> >>>>> values, e.g., G-PID 56? >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Much thanks, >> >>> >> >>> Lou >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> CCAMP mailing list >> >> CCAMP@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >> > > > >
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Clos… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing G.… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing G.709 open issues Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: … Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closing… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Closin… Khuzema Pithewan
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Clo… Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: Clos… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: … Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: R: C… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: R: Closing Issue #49 (Was: Re: … Lou Berger