[CCAMP] Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-08: priority

"Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <giomarti@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3174011E8097 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BpQFzyjmT9Xl for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8757711E8087 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=giomarti@cisco.com; l=1179; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1343687678; x=1344897278; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=fvCskK+KDd4pbLwdXZ9Bdq6cJ1LNt7nxGHQ+jg0Z2RQ=; b=RByu3IdZ9cwJfrUZ9S7gsRQyg+OK5z/xPZxDc03OtcRbzJKDpIuXYu46 PLUeQ2Ro5rnsSJrkgX82kvYsf9ESR+vdKv/IapkreqdaQ/rAi35tysJzt 32tvtsw0svCVuoOINEoZCx/Yf5alHKIaeDI4uxsP8PZgWdDLFzqORZIKm o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EANoKF1CtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFuVmBB4InEgEnUQE+QicENYdrC5lTgSigKYtShidgA5VJgRSNE4Fmgl8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,681,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="106568484"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2012 22:34:38 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6UMYbYj018914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:34:37 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:34:37 -0500
From: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <giomarti@cisco.com>
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-08: priority
Thread-Index: AQHNbqOAwicEtWD5nEWGP6luAcXdUg==
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:34:37 +0000
Message-ID: <98310D9B-8BF2-4C16-ABEF-F96D1DE1675C@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--27.947500-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <56B0CCCE4D41D645809CAC5E0375FFDA@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [CCAMP] Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-08: priority
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, 30 Jul 2012 22:34:39 -0000

Dear authors / ccamp,

here a few comments related to the priority field added to draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode:

A couple of editorial comments
1)  "wavelenght priority" appears in a draft that claim to be general. In fact is available in "Available Labels Sub-TLV" and "Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV". So is a wavelength or label-like priority?
2)  why an 8 bits (bit field) instead of the classic 3 bits (integer [0 .. 7]?

Then few other comments
3)  How the priority is used versus the A flag . Draft text report
   A (Availability bit) = 1 or 0 indicates that the labels listed in
   the following label set field are available or not available,
   respectively, for use at a given priority level as indicated by the
   Priority Flags.

So does it means that there could be different "available labels sub-TLVs" advertised? 

4) Still unclear to me how this priority is different from the one reported in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kattan-wson-property-01 and eventually if this "priority" could fit the LSP priority already available (as one of the comment we received at that time)