[CCAMP] Draft Text for CCAMP to ITU-T Liason regarding WSON-Encode

Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Mon, 05 January 2015 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F6B1A19E9 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:57:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jQvwH0RYUqXO for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AB461A19E4 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BQV94849; Mon, 05 Jan 2015 02:57:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:57:04 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by SZXEMA413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:56:59 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Draft Text for CCAMP to ITU-T Liason regarding WSON-Encode
Thread-Index: AdAok0Tdo77YxRLDTYqpfVotXwpc/g==
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 02:56:58 +0000
Message-ID: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CBD4AA1@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CBD4AA1SZXEMA504MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/LFdGdGgvrMmfCRuaXru6SBKKj1A
Subject: [CCAMP] Draft Text for CCAMP to ITU-T Liason regarding WSON-Encode
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 05 Jan 2015 02:57:12 -0000

Hi all,

The AD is reviewing [draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode] and has asked us to check the data plane details with the ITU-T.

Therefore, we prepared the following draft liaison to ITU-T Q6/15.

Please review the draft text to see if you have any comments ASAP, and then we are going to send the liaison to ITU-T before this Friday.


The CCAMP working group of the IETF would like to draft the attention of Q6/15 to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode/ . This document describes encodings for a number of parameters that will be used in GMPLS protocols for operation of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks.

The document is in its final stages and will soon progress to IETF last call.

We would particularly welcome your review of sections 4.1.1-4.1.4. These sections describe the encoding of Application Codes as described in G.698.1, G.698.2, G.959.1, and G.695. The questions you might like to consider in this respect are:

- Are we capturing current application codes?

  In other words, are our references correct and correctly used?

- Are there any application codes we are missing?

  Is our set of references correct and have we included all of the application codes in the references?

- Have we captured all of the parameters of the application codes?

  In our attempt to capture the application codes into formats we can use in our protocols, have we found all of the parameters that comprise the application codes?

- Are the fields for each parameter of each application code appropriately sized and with the correct ranges?

  In other words, will we be able to properly encode the application codes defined today and their possible future extensions?

In view of the progress of this work, we would be very happy to receive informal responses and guidance from individuals or from the Question as a whole if it has time to formulate an agreed response.

Many thanks for your attention.

Fatai Zhang and Daniele Ceccarelli (CCAMP WG chairs)


Best Regards