Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 02 February 2015 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD1B1A90ED; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:28:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_BIZ=0.288, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hn5ewjylIoHt; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:28:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from newdragon.webhostserver.biz (newdragon.webhostserver.biz [69.25.136.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067081A90EC; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:58783) by newdragon.webhostserver.biz with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1YIOXy-00060f-6K; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:28:42 +0300
Message-ID: <54CFEC08.7010304@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:28:40 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
References: <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A6C46DC@C0010I0.coe.ntt.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C7B111@dfweml706-chm> <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A6C5EEF@C0010I0.coe.ntt.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C7C7D3@dfweml706-chm> <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A6C6FF6@C0010I0.coe.ntt.com>
In-Reply-To: <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A6C6FF6@C0010I0.coe.ntt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - newdragon.webhostserver.biz
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: newdragon.webhostserver.biz: authenticated_id: lberger@blabn.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/Lw_51xEszvxNASWvG_H3C8oz5gM>
Cc: "'rtg-dir@ietf.org'" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "'draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.all@tools.ietf.org'" <draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.all@tools.ietf.org>, "'ccamp@ietf.org'" <ccamp@ietf.org>, Tomonori Takeda <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
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, 02 Feb 2015 21:28:47 -0000

Hi Young,

I see you just published an update.  I have one question below.

On 1/23/2015 3:01 AM, Tomonori Takeda wrote:
> Hi Young,
>
> OK, thanks,
>
> Tomonori
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leeyoung [mailto:leeyoung@huawei.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:44 AM
> To: Tomonori Takeda(武田知典); Leeyoung; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: 'rtg-dir@ietf.org'org'; 'draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.all@tools.ietf.org'org'; 'ccamp@ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
>
> Hi Tomonori,
>
> Thanks for your comment. Please see in-line for my response. Please let me know if the response would satisfy you. 
>
> Best regards,
> Young
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tomonori Takeda [mailto:tomonori.takeda@ntt.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:48 AM
> To: Leeyoung; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: 'rtg-dir@ietf.org'org'; 'draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.all@tools.ietf.org'org'; 'ccamp@ietf.org'org'; Tomonori Takeda
> Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
>
> Hi Young,
>
> Thanks.
>
> Two follow-up questions/comments.
> (I am fine with other points, which you already addressed in the updated draft.)
>
>> 2) In section 2.1, it says "two matrices will not have the same {src port, src label, dst port, dst label}". To be precise, I guess this should be > "two matrices will not have the same {src port, src label}, and two matrices will not have the same {dst port, dst label}"?
>>
>> YOUNG>> I think your suggestion may be too restrictive. For instance, if we have one source (port 1) and one destination (port 2) with two labels > each. Then we would have: {(1,1,2,1), (1,1,2,2), (1,2,2,1), (1,2,2,2)} I think with the current statement, we can send this info in any combination > of multiple matrices, which I think perfectly fine. With your suggestion, I would not be able send (1,1,2,1) and (1,1,2,2) together. Why would this > not be made possible? My take is as long as each submatrix represents a set of disjoint quadruples, that should be allowed.
> My reading of "two matrices will not have the same {src port, src label, dst port, dst label}" is as follows.
>
> <Example A>
>
>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#1 --> output port=2
>   input label=1                     output label=1
>
>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#2 --> output port=2
>   input label=1                     output label=2
>
>   This is allowed.
>
> <Example B>
>
>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#1 --> output port=2
>   input label=1                     output label=1
>
>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#2 --> output port=2
>   input label=1                     output label=1
>
>   This is not allowed.
>
> <Example C>
>
>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#1 --> output port=2
>   input label=1                     output label=1
>
>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#2 --> output port=2
>   input label=2                     output label=2
>
>   This is allowed.
>
> Is above understanding correct?
> If so, I am not sure how example A works, since I am not sure what is the indentifier to direct from input to each submatrix.
>
> Maybe I am mis-understanding what sub-matrix is. I thought sub-matrix is a sort of virtual node, splitting the single matrix (or switch) into smaller pieces.

Can you explain how the revised text clarifies this point?

Thanks,
Lou

> ....