Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call Comments on "GMPLS Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks"

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 07 February 2014 17:33 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 A1BE61A0025 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:33:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 N0cNoozVGqOg for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alt-proxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com (alt-proxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com [74.220.218.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A4971A0166 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 3931 invoked by uid 0); 7 Feb 2014 17:32:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2014 17:32:39 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=a9CK7kUBERbjJBKwBQTXwx1MJeyNy4Zh46tIE4wJGSM=; b=PedPITXpB50caWKitfunz7kwn8R2DC+etpWBRlSYUk5M3uBxAAPeGW26nWTv+V2+3JLvE4vkxNcH+AGIhJXKez/YeZxP1txiZVL+LL7rsLTni7O7AC0HgeBSFCjDNi8b;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:46611 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1WBpI6-0003pB-NT; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:32:38 -0700
Message-ID: <52F518B3.5090403@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:32:35 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
References: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030B0E4A@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB5F34@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> <06D60676-4C54-4D18-AD96-F436E7C39DEC@ericsson.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB6E79@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> <52F5084F.7010506@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB72C0@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB72C0@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call Comments on "GMPLS Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks"
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: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 17:33:42 -0000

Young,
	I suspect you might make a change or two based on my previous mail on
the encoding document.  Once any such changes are made, I think you'll
be good to submit.

BTW The summary is needed on published versions only.

Lou

On 2/7/2014 11:37 AM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Lou,
> 
> My bad, here's the working version with correction. Let me know if this is ready to publish with a summary of changes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Young
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 10:23 AM
> To: Leeyoung; Acee Lindem
> Cc: CCAMP
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call Comments on "GMPLS Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks"
> 
> 
> Young,
> 	You missed this comment:
> 
> CURRENT:
>    The format of Label is required of the use of the label format
>    defined in [RFC6205] for interfaces advertised with WSON-LSC.
> NEW
>    The label format defined in [RFC6205] MUST be used when
>    advertising interfaces with a WSON-LSC type Switching Capability.
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 2/6/2014 2:40 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
>> Hi Acee and Lou,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Here's the working document and the idnits results.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Acee, Please see inline for my comments to your comments. I have 
>> incorporated all your comments except one - I need your clarification.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Young
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:*Acee Lindem [mailto:acee.lindem@ericsson.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 05, 2014 4:11 PM
>> *To:* Leeyoung
>> *Cc:* CCAMP
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call Comments on "GMPLS Enhancement for 
>> Signal and Network Element Compatibility of Wavelength Switched 
>> Optical Networks"
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hi Young,
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com 
>> <mailto:leeyoung@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Acee,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Here's my comments inline on your comments.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Young
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:* ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
>> <mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *On 
>> Behalf Of *Acee Lindem
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2013 5:16 PM
>> *To:* CCAMP
>> *Subject:* [CCAMP] WG Last Call Comments on "GMPLS Enhancement for 
>> Signal and Network Element Compatibility of Wavelength Switched 
>> Optical Networks"
>>
>>  
>>
>> I have the following comments on the subject draft:
>>
>>  
>>
>> 1.      State the action to take if the new TLV and sub-TLVs or their
>> attendant encodings are malformed. You should log the problem and 
>> ignore the entire LSA, subsuming TLV, or just the sub-TLV in GMPLS 
>> path computations.
>>
>> YOUNG>>  In Section 5.2, added:
>>
>>  
>>
>> "In case where the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are
>>
>>    malformed, the proper action would be to log the problem and ignore
>>
>>    just the sub-TLVs in GMPLS path computations rather than ignoring
>>
>>    the entire LSA."
>>
>>  
>>
>> See inline. 
>>
>>  
>>
>> *YOUNG>> Which inline are you referring to? *
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> 2.      Section 2 - Your definition of "At most once" is semantically
>> wrong. "At most once" means the TLV or sub-TLV can be include one time 
>> or not at all. It has nothing to with whether or not it should be 
>> specified. I hope we are not going to attempt to change the English 
>> language with this draft.
>>
>> YOUNG>> Corrected.  Is a new text OK with you?
>>
>>  
>>
>> "All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given Optical 
>> Node TLV. If more than one copy of a sub-TLV is received,
>>
>>    only the first one of the same type is accommodated and the rest 
>> are ignored upon receipt."
>>
>>  
>>
>> Yes - although I'd replace "accommodated" with "processed". 
>>
>>  
>>
>> *YOUNG>> OK. Corrected. *
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> 3.      Section 3 - Figure 1 should not span multiple pages and the
>> scale is off by one - it should be shifted right 1 column.  
>>
>> YOUNG>>  Done
>>
>>  
>>
>> Ok. 
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> 4.      Section 6 - Explicitly state which are IANA registries are being
>> extended. Since you are adding a new TLV, you will also need a new 
>> registry for the sub-TLVs.
>> Seehttp://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs/ospf-traffic-
>> eng-tlvs.xhtml#top-level for examples.
>>
>>  
>>
>> YOUNG>> Done. Please check if the corrections are good.
>>
>>  
>>
>> It would be easier for IANA if you explicitly state that you are 
>> creating two new registries.
>>
>>  
>>
>>     A new IANA registry will be created for sub-TLVs of the Optical 
>> Node Property TLV. The following sub-TLVs are allocated in this specification.
>>
>>  
>>
>>                         o
>>
>>                         o
>>
>>                         o
>>
>>  
>>
>>    Additionally, a new IANA registry will be created for nested 
>> sub-TLVs of the Resource Block Information sub-TLV. The following 
>> sub-TLVs are allocated in this specification.
>>
>>  
>>
>>                        o
>>
>>                        o
>>
>>                        o
>>
>> *YOUNG>> I reshuffled the order starting from the Optical Node 
>> Property TLV, and its sub-TLVs and nested-TLVs; then WSON-LSC 
>> Switching Type TLV and its sub-TLVs. *
>>
>> *Please see the enclosed working version. *
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Acee
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>          
>>
>>  
>>
>> Editorial Comments:
>>
>>  
>>
>> I would suggest the following corrections:
>>
>>   
>>
>>  
>>
>> 125c125
>>
>> <    to allow both multiple WSON signal types and common hybrid electro
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    to support both multiple WSON signal types and common hybrid 
>>> electro
>>
>> 197c197
>>
>> <    node. It is constructed of a set of sub-TLVs. There are no ordering
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    node. It is comprised of a set of sub-TLVs. There are no ordering
>>
>> 203c203
>>
>> <    encodings of these properties are defined in [WSON-Encode].
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    encodings for these properties are defined in [WSON-Encode].
>>
>> 253,254c253
>>
>> <    router, as described in [RFC3630] and [RFC5250]. Resource Block
>>
>> <    Information
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    router, as described in [RFC3630] and [RFC5250].
>>
>> 279,280c278,279
>>
>> <    The detail encodings of these sub-TLVs are found in [WSON-Encode] as
>>
>> <    indicated in the table below.
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    The detailed encodings of these sub-TLVs are found in 
>>> [WSON-Encode]
>>
>>>    as indicated in the table below.
>>
>> 293c292
>>
>> <    relation to the switching device. In particular it indicates the
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    relation to the switching device. In particular, it indicates the
>>
>> 302,303c301,302
>>
>> <    reach or leave all the resources. Resource Block Wavelength
>>
>> <    Constraints sub-TLV describe these properties.
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    reach or leave all the resources. The Resource Block Wavelength
>>
>>>    Constraints sub-TLV describes these properties.
>>
>> 316c315
>>
>> <    case then wavelength availability on these shared fibers is needed
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    case, then wavelength availability on these shared fibers is 
>>> needed
>>
>> 353c352
>>
>> <    Bandwidth TLV are defined (TBA by IANA):
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    Bandwidth sub-TLVs are defined (TBA by IANA):
>>
>> 402c401
>>
>> <    produce LSAs that exceed the IP Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU). In
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    produce LSAs that exceeds the IP Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU). 
>>> In
>>
>> 417,422c416,421
>>
>> <    is received for a system path cannot make use of the other four sub-
>>
>> <    TLVs since it does not know the nature of the resources, e.g., are
>>
>> <    the resources wavelength converters, regenerators, or something
>>
>> <    else. Once this sub-TLV is received path computation can proceed
>>
>> <    with whatever of the additional types of sub-TLVs it may have
>>
>> <    received (there use is dependent upon the system type). If path
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    is received for a system, path compuation cannot make use of the
>>
>>>    other four sub-TLVs since it does not know the nature of the
>>
>>>    resources, e.g., are the resources wavelength converters,
>>
>>>    regenerators, or something else. Once this sub-TLV is received,
>>
>>>    path computation can proceed with whatever sub-TLVs it may have
>>
>>>    received (their use is dependent upon the system type). If path
>>
>> 433c432
>>
>> <    these sub-TLVs then there is the possibility of either (a) path
>>
>> ---
>>
>>>    these sub-TLVs, then there is the possibility of either (a) path
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Acee
>>
>>  
>>
>> <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te-07.txt>
>>
>>  
>>