Re: [CCAMP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-05: (with COMMENT)

Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es> Mon, 24 August 2015 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
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 C9EE71B3339 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 04:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=unavailable
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 pmRCQNcInZ67 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 04:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from navarro.puc.rediris.es (navarro.puc.rediris.es [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca01::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9D031B3337 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 04:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by navarro.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>) id 1ZTpVB-0005UY-FS; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:01:22 +0200
Received: from [84.88.61.50] (unknown [84.88.61.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03B211FEF4; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:01:17 +0200 (CEST)
X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150805220817.431.69640.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <022401d0d2b4$aebe55c0$0c3b0140$@olddog.co.uk> <55C7E7C0.10506@cs.tcd.ie> <55C9C6CA.6040809@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
Message-ID: <55DAF97F.1090500@cttc.es>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:01:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55C9C6CA.6040809@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-0.2 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4745]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/QwJXi54afYgUwAL0FfPLsyh0yyM>
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk.ad@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-05: (with COMMENT)
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 24 Aug 2015 11:01:29 -0000

Dear Stephen, Adrian

Thank you both for discussing this, please see inline for additional 
comments

El 11/08/2015 a las 11:56, Stephen Farrell escribió:
> (...) work resulting in the IETF will consist
> of a number of relatively minor extensions to existing protocols,
> in which case the approach taken in the draft of asserting that
> there's nothing much new here can be ok.
Ramon> *relived* I believe this is the case.
>
> Perhaps I got somewhat taken in by some more marketing language
> in the draft or something:-)

> In summary, if this draft is the start of a big new chunk of work in
> the IETF, then my comment stands - it should have had a serious chunk
> of security/privacy analysis and I don't see evidence that it did.

> If however I've misinterpreted the draft and it's really just teeing
> up a set of relatively minor extensions to existing protocols, then
> the "assertion that there's nothing new" approach taken here can in
> some cases be justified, and if this is the situation then I can see
> how my comment would be seen as over the top.

Ramon> As Adrian has surely pointed you out,  the draft is defining the 
fwk and req for the application of the GMPLS arch and protocols to a new 
switching capability / layer. Indeed, although the  technology/language 
etc., is cumbersome, it will result in relatively minor protocol 
extensions to existing protocols and not much different to what has 
already been done in the past with optical networks with fixed grid, 
OTN, SDH, etc.

We could extend the draft abstract for this, with something in the lines of:

OLD

This document defines a framework and the associated control plane
  requirements for the GMPLS-based control of flexi-grid DWDM networks.

NEW

Given the specific characteristics of flexi-grid optical networks and their
associated technology,  this document defines a framework and the
associated control plane requirements for the application of the existing
GMPLS architecture and control plane protocols to the control of flexi-grid
DWDM networks.  The actual extensions to the GMPLS protocols will be
defined in companion documents.

Thoughts?

thanks
Ramon