[CCAMP] FW: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Fri, 25 October 2013 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.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 DBD6C11E8201 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 24AU9JZ9b39P for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E8E11E81DC for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AXE87610; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:43:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:43:27 +0100
Received: from DFWEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.134) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:43:35 +0100
Received: from dfweml511-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.15.141]) by dfweml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.134]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:43:30 -0700
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
Thread-Index: AQHO0UlhHRmariezxUa6c3vUdmUMgZoFwepAgAB8ggD//4vkcIAAeLMAgAAJQgD//4/fYIAABsOQ
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 20:43:29 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291DC833@dfweml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.126]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [CCAMP] FW: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
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, 25 Oct 2013 20:43:44 -0000

Here's some comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode from Ramon and the resolution. 

Thanks,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Leeyoung [mailto:leeyoung@huawei.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:19 PM
To: Ramon Casellas; draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Morro Roberto
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode

Hi Ramon,

It works for me. Please confirm the changes: 

s/PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): Indicates priority level applied to
     Label Set Field. Bit 8 corresponds to priority level 0 and bit 15
     corresponds to priority level 7

/PRI (Priority Flags, 8 bits): A bitmap used to indicate which priorities
       are being advertised.  The bitmap is in ascending order, with the
       leftmost bit representing priority level 0 (i.e., the highest) and
       the rightmost bit representing priority level 7 (i.e., the
       lowest).  A bit MUST be set (1) corresponding to each priority
       represented in the sub-TLV, and MUST NOT be set (0) when the
       corresponding priority is not represented.  At least one priority
       level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy,
       SHALL be at priority level 0.

And Appendix A.5 will be changed as follows: 

A.5. Priority Flags in Available/Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV

   If one wants to make a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field
   #1) available only for highest priority level (Priority Level 0)
   while allowing a set of labels (indicated by Label Set Field #2)
   available to all priority levels (Priority Level 7), the following
   encoding will express such need.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|              Reserved                         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Label Set Field #1                        |
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|              Reserved                         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Label Set Field #2                        |
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramon Casellas [mailto:ramon.casellas@cttc.es]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:00 PM
To: Leeyoung; draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode@tools.ietf.org
Cc: Morro Roberto
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode

El 25/10/2013 21:26, Ramon Casellas escribió:
> El 25/10/2013 21:24, Leeyoung escribió:
>> Hi Ramon,
>>
>> If I recall, the pri field was 3 bits and someone (I forgot) raised 
>> that it should be a 8-bit field to match with other priority encoding 
>> in MPLS.

Hi again, my hopeful final message :-) but it is slightly different (the good part, it does not change the size and it goes in line with OTN)

I checked, for example,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3-10
which is much clearer:

- I has 8 bits field, each bit corresponding to a priority
- Bits are set to "1" is that priority "applies".
- The same labelset can be used for different priorities, without copying each one
- So it would leave a 8 bit field

      - Priority (8 bits): A bitmap used to indicate which priorities
       are being advertised.  The bitmap is in ascending order, with the
       leftmost bit representing priority level 0 (i.e., the highest) and
       the rightmost bit representing priority level 7 (i.e., the
       lowest).  A bit MUST be set (1) corresponding to each priority
       represented in the sub-TLV, and MUST NOT be set (0) when the
       corresponding priority is not represented.  At least one priority
       level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy,
       SHALL be at priority level 0.


I guess the final message is "we should change something, not sure what" :) R.

--
Ramon Casellas, Ph.D. -- Senior Research Associate -- Networks Division Optical Networks and Systems Department -- http://wikiona.cttc.es CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia (PMT) - Edifici B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain
Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 ext 2168-- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01