Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers

Iftekhar,
	See in-line.

On 2/3/2014 2:15 AM, Iftekhar Hussain wrote:
> Lou,
> 
>  Understood. All powers to the process.
> 
> I felt that there is  insufficient use cases/requirements
> discussion/coverage in the framework document at this moment. We need
> more active discussion inputs from wider CCAMP group. 

> Otherwise, I
> don't see why we have not been looking at the solution documents for
> a long time.

As a general statement, I see no reason not to be discussing solution
documents. I believe I already said this to you in our Berlin session
where we had basically this exact same exchange.

> If we are ready to look at solutions in the Flexible Grid area, the authors of the IDs ("Generalized Label for Super-Channel Assignment on Flexible Grid" and 
> "OSPFTE extension to support GMPLS for Flex Grid") are  planning to make updates (possibly before the next IETF):

Please do! -- my main objective to jumping in on this thread is to
ensure that all are bringing their technical contributions/input to the
discussion.

> 
> a)  Terminology alignment (replace the term "Super-Channel" with an appropriate alternate term/definition based on last IETF meeting discussion)
> b)  Clearly separate out the label solution draft into a "single frequency slot" and "multiple frequency slots" cases. Note the single frequency slot case is in alignment with ITU frequency slot (m,n) definitions except  m field is 16-bit field).
> c) Some terminology related updates in the OSPF draft. BTW, we believe, this is one of the earliest solution drafts for flexgrid related OSPF extensions.
> 
> We also would like to solicit feedback from the working and the next steps for these drafts.
> 

In addition to bringing your drafts forward, I'd also suggest that you
respond to your own message to the list (the one included below) and
provide some substance behind your comment to Dan.  (And yes, I'm
agreeing with Curtis ;-)

Thanks and see you in London!

Lou

> Best regards,
> Iftekhar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:29 PM
> To: Iftekhar Hussain; Daniel King; 'CCAMP'
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers
> 
> Iftekhar,
> 
> Speaking purely from a process standpoint: adoption is the start of work on a topic, not a codification of an end state.  This is why we typically ask if a document reflects a "good starting point for WG activity" when discussing the adoption of a draft.
> 
> Again, speaking from a general perspective, I certainly don't think the process requires discussion/adoption to be blocked while a framework (or even requirement) document has some open points.
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
> On January 30, 2014 6:26:40 PM Iftekhar Hussain <IHussain@infinera.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Thanks for the update. In my view, there are number of areas which 
>> still needs to be addressed in the framework document (e.g., control 
>> plane
>> requirements) before we move toward solution drafts.
>>
>> BR,
>> Iftekhar
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel King [mailto:daniel@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 
>> January 29,
>> 2014 9:06 AM
>> To: 'CCAMP'
>> Subject: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label 
>> Switching Routers
>>
>> Hi CCAMP'rs,
>>
>> The authors are planning a revision of this I-D before London, but the 
>> only changes will be the addition of an Implementation Status section 
>> as per RFC6982.
>>
>> It seems to us that this I-D is stable and that there are no further 
>> technical issues. The label format documented in the I-D has been 
>> picked up by the RSVP-TE extensions draft and the ongoing OSPF work.
>> We would like to take this opportunity to solicit feedback from the 
>> working
>> group:
>>
>> - Are there any changes you would like to see in the draft? - Are you 
>> happy with the label format described? - What do you think the next 
>> steps should be for this draft?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan (for the authors)
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCAMP mailing list
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 