Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Deborah,

Thanks for sharing your operator's perspective.  I am wondering how the OUI would really help for interoperability other than identifying the specific vendors that are using their proprietary code.

Say vendor A uses FEC type A while vendor B used FEC type B, and both of them are proprietary FECs. I believe the OUI will help the operator identify this fact and conclude the systems are not compatible. But would this really help operators toward interoperability? I believe a better way for operators to attain interoperability is to force vendors use standard FECs and have them agree on the same type of FECs within the standard FECs. My point is how vendor specific code would be really helpful even if we employ the OUI field.

Thanks,
Young

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:46 AM
To: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); [e-mail]; 'Gert Grammel'; 'Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)'
Cc: 'Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

Hi All,

As Lou noted, Adrian's option 1 was the intention as this was discussed when G872 was being revised to introduce Application Identifier (IETF's March 2013 meeting). As Kam notes, ITU's work on G.874.1 has evolved to include the OUI.

As a network operator, I prefer as Adrian says - let's attempt to match draft G.874.1 (it does have agreement). So Adrian's option 2. While the context of this work is within an operator's network, the OUI will help to ensure interoperability.

Adrian - good catch-
Deborah

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 8:50 PM
To: [e-mail]; 'Gert Grammel'; 'Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)'
Cc: 'Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

Hi Adrian,

Yes, while Q14/15 already reached agreement to update the Application Identifier description, the update has not been formally approved and published by SG15 yet. Q14/15 may be able to consent this update as an Amendment to G.874.1 at the upcoming SG15 meeting in July 2015.

Regards,
Kam

From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:59 PM
To: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); 'Gert Grammel'; 'Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)'
Cc: 'Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)'; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

Thanks for being awake, Kam.

Useful info.

Gert, the OUI registry is an IEEE registry as Kam says. IANA has a registry page for this, but it points to the IEEE page.

As I understand Kam, 874.1 is not yet updated so it would be premature to point to it, but an option is to attempt to match it now and fix later if needed.

Adrian

From: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 23 January 2015 17:10
To: Gert Grammel; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 'Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)'
Cc: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

Hi Gert,

A vendor can purchase an OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) from the IEEE Registration Authority.
Once a vendor has its OUI, the vendor can manage its vendor-specific application identifiers under its own OUI.
SG15 doesn't need to host any registry for this purpose.

Regards,
Kam

From: Gert Grammel [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 11:49 AM
To: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 'Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)'
Cc: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

Hi Kam,

Is SG15 considering to host a registry for the vendor specific application code or is the IETF registry supposed to be used?

Thanks

Gert

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)
Sent: 23 January 2015 17:03
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 'Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)'
Cc: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode


Dear all,



For your information. In the last SG15 meeting, Q14/15 agreed to update G.874.1 to amend the specification of ApplicationIdentifier with the following additional text:



If the ApplicationIdentifierType is STANDARD, the value of PrintableString represents a standard application code as defined in the ITU-T Recommendations. If the ApplicationIdentifierType is PROPRIETARY, the first six characters of the PrintableString must contain the Hexadecimal representation of an OUI assigned to the vendor whose implementation generated the Application Identifier; the remaining octets of the PrintableString are unspecified.



Paul Doolan had an I-D "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-doolan-proprietary-ac-00" to the last IETF meeting with the similar proposal.



Regards,

Kam



-----Original Message-----

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel

Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 9:41 AM

To: 'Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)'

Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode



Hi,



I appreciate this discussion, but I am not seeing a specific conclusion from it.



The current I-D makes (IMHO) the Vendor-Specific Application Code unusable. I offered three options:



1 This value is only to be used when it is known that all devices

   participating in a network have the same understanding of

   the content of the Vendor-Specific Application Code field.

   How this knowledge is achieved is outside the scope of this

   document



2 When this value is set, the first 32 (or 48) bits of the Vendor-

  Specific Application Code field contain an Enterprise Number

  (or OUI) that defines the context in which the remainder of

  that field is interpreted.



3 Remove the option to include a Vendor-Specific Application

   Code field.



If the WG could please pick one of these and help Young to update the document.



Thanks,

Adrian



> -----Original Message-----

> From: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) [mailto:[e-mail]]

> Sent: 23 January 2015 13:50

> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> Cc: Leeyoung; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;

> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

>

> One additional comment (hoping not additional confusion).

>

> The idea about Optical Interface Class was taken from SRLG. Good or

> bad is a plain number and you do simple operations on it.

>

> Cheers

> G

>

> On 22 Jan 2015, at 09:42, Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)

> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> wrote:

>

> > Hi Adrian,

> >

> > On 21 Jan 2015, at 22:55, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

> >

> >> Hi,

> >>

> >> Well, you seem to have a half-way house.

> >>

> >> You have specified the existence of a thing, but not how to read it.

> >>

> >> If you wanted to make a statement that this object will only be

> >> used when

it is

> >> known that all systems in a network come from the same vendor

> >> and/or have

> the

> >> same understanding of the encoding, that might be OK (although how

> >> you

> would

> >> ascertain this might also need to be described).

> >>

> >

> > The statement is to ensure the interface compatibility without

> > encoding all

the

> possible details and parameter that define an interface (e.g.

> modulation

format,

> forward error correction etc.). This was the initial solution in the

> draft

then

> replaced by the interface class concept.   The WSON (RWA-only) has the

> requirement is to make sure two interface are compatible. This

> requirement, imho, can be satisfy by a simple comparison which has a boolean result.

> >

> > We end up then in  the ITU application codes for the "certified"

> > (we'll this

is my

> term not 100% sure is the best one) compatibility where proper

> encoding is provided.

> >

> >

> >> Or you could entirely remove the vendor-specific option.

> >>

> >> Or you could put in an OUI / enterprise number followed by

> >> transparent

> bytes.

> >>

> >

> > To me I'm perfectly fine with the second option.

> >

> > Cheers

> > G

> >

> >

> >> Adrian

> >>

> >>> -----Original Message-----

> >>> From: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) [mailto:[e-mail]]

> >>> Sent: 21 January 2015 21:22

> >>> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >>> Cc: Leeyoung; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;

> >>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> >>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

> >>>

> >>> Specifically to the Interface class here below.

> >>>

> >>> In the initial draft merged to this one there was the usage of OUI

> >>> however

(I

> >>> guess after chatting with Lou) we decided to remove any encoding

> >>> when the Interface class is not standard.

> >>> In term of semantic the protcol does not need to decode the

> >>> Interface

class

> >> since

> >>> it only assess the interface compatibility if two interfaces has a

> >>> class

value

> >> that

> >>> match two interfaces cann be connected.

> >>>

> >>> Having saying that I don't have strong opinion in adding the OUI

> >>> or

leaving

> >> room

> >>> for maybe future public interfaces database. For sure there's a

> >>> need to

leave

> >>> room for specific compatibility assesment since there optical

> >>> multivendor compatibility has been already demonstrated.

> >>>

> >>> hope this help .

> >>>

> >>> Cheers

> >>> G

> >>>

> >>>

> >>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 21:57, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> Section 4.1

> >>>>>> How do I interpret a Vendor-Specific Application Code? Is there

> >>>>>> an OUI I'm missing?

> >>>>>

> >>>>> [YOUNG] Not sure if I understood this question. What is "OUI"?

> >>>>

> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizationally_unique_identifier

> >>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-

> >>> numbers.xhtml#ieee-802

> >>>> -numbers-2

> >>>>

> >>>> Or perhaps an Enterprise Number

> >>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/enterprise-

> numbers

> >>>>

> >>>> The question is:

> >>>>

> >>>> You have sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4 to tell me how to interpret

> >>>> the

> >> Optical

> >>>> Interface Class field when it contains an ITU-T Application Mapping.

> >>>> When I received s=0 and OI=1 it means that the Optical Interface

> >>>> Class

> >> contains

> >>>> a "Vendor Specific Optical Interface Class".

> >>>> How do I interpret that Optical Interface Class?

> >>>> Which vendor does it apply to?

> >>>> Is there some information elsewhere that gives me a clue as to

> >>>> which

> vendor

> >>> has

> >>>> encoded the information?

> >>>> Or is the information supposed to be encoded in the Optical

> >>>> Interface

Class,

> >>>> perhaps as the first 48 bits?

> >>>> Or am I supposed to know by context?

> >>

> >



_______________________________________________

CCAMP mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp