IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] clarification about draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Mon, 01 April 2013 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.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 5CA6B21E804A for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 ombaTPmhM1kw for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com [209.65.160.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFF61F0C74 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) with ESMTP id 2bcc9515.73f9c940.244235.00-565.677972.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from <db3546@att.com>); Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:06:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5159ccb276f52454-86f260e99db8048020301e0178ccda3d6c6095aa
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.146] (EHLO mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id eacc9515.0.244196.00-407.677853.nbfkord-smmo05.seg.att.com (envelope-from <db3546@att.com>); Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:06:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5159ccae0a1b8688-6d74c39b4fc360bf58c8e1bba3404937813fd6fe
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r31I6b9i032645; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:06:37 -0400
Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by mlpd194.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r31I6UlP032468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:06:32 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9b.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.72]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:06:19 +0100
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.75]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9B.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.72]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:06:19 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: Francesco Fondelli <francesco.fondelli@gmail.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] clarification about draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps
Thread-Index: AQHOLvS35E5gvsW8qk+nQPJ9P69loZjBomHw
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:06:19 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C82A8BB6@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <CABP12JwDkUkRayvoE-orb3ZNANgDpaLqQYOyOC=pL=OFYi2Dew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABP12JwDkUkRayvoE-orb3ZNANgDpaLqQYOyOC=pL=OFYi2Dew@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.16.234.214]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <db3546@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.146]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=DLo4FVxb c=1 sm=0 a=Qs8R1XBwmid1qBFB/a8mmA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=RWEAq7CW3jcA:10 a=OIZjW_EDwrwA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLc]
X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32R]
X-AnalysisOut: [AAAA:8 a=Axtq_jpKRe8A:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=T2tGs_0Zn0oO0D]
X-AnalysisOut: [xfRvMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] clarification about draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps
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: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:06:43 -0000

Hi Francesco,

While these may be protection switching parameters, this draft is about configuration of these parameters. Protection switching provisioning has always been treated as a common equipment management functionality - same as performance management and fault management (refer to G.7710 section 8). So it is in scope of OAM configuration. CCAMP's OAM configuration work has been focused on PM and FM but it is generally applicable (hopefully) to any equipment management configuration.

Lou's comment is that the WG has chosen the approach used in the OAM framework document for configuration. Instead of updating the protection object at this time as your draft proposes, the question is have you considered using the OAM configuration TLV? First, we need to understand why you have chosen to not use this approach. Then we can discuss pros and cons.

BR-
Deborah


-----Original Message-----
From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francesco Fondelli
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 12:20 PM
To: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: [CCAMP] clarification about draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps

quoting item 15, from www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-ccamp

Lou Berger: I think you misunderstood my comment from the last meeting. You
should look at leveraging the OAM configuration work which came after the
earlier versions of your draft.
Zafar Ali: this is applicable to multiple technologies.
Lou Berger: yes, the OAM configuration framework is also applicable to
multiple technologies. You need a strong reason not to follow the WG in
this area. Please look at the OAM configuration document
[draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk] and either follow it or state why
your work is justified in not following the existing WG solution in this
area.

---

Hi all,

  the OAM configuration framework [1] is about OAM.  Therefore, it is used in
order to signal OAM functionalities: CC/CV and PM/FM in MPLS-TP [2], CC/CV
TTI/SAPI/DAPI in SONET/SDH/OTN [3]... while our draft [4] is about *protection
switching*.  HOFF, WTR and SNC sub-type are protection switching parameters.

  I believe HOFF, WTR and SNC sub-type are outside of the OAM configuration
framework scope and should be signaled as any other protection switching
params (i.e. via PROTECTION object).

  I hope this answer Lou question reported above (item 15, IETF 86 ccamp
minutes).  Authors of [4] would like to understand WG's view about this point
and are soliciting for comments.

thank you
ciao
FF

[1]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-09

[2]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-11

[3]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-sdh-otn-oam-ext-05

[4]
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps-08
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email