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

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Thu, 06 February 2014 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
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 B79BB1A0478 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:40:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.725
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.725 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01] 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 G8GMaHyyGfmf for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B821E1A0461 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:40:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BDI13220; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:40:34 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:39:32 +0000
Received: from DFWEML705-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.142) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:40:29 +0000
Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.193]) by dfweml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.245]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:40:20 -0800
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG Last Call Comments on "GMPLS Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks"
Thread-Index: AQHO1PR6OxsJkAR0EUmBv2bkfRkIWpqkwG2wgAOaAACAAL9NMA==
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:40:19 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB6E79@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
References: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE47030B0E4A@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB5F34@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> <06D60676-4C54-4D18-AD96-F436E7C39DEC@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <06D60676-4C54-4D18-AD96-F436E7C39DEC@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.137.208]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB6E79dfweml706chmchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:40:48 -0000

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>