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

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] 
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:[e-mail]]
> *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 <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Acee,
> 
>  
> 
> Here's my comments inline on your comments.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Young
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] *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>
> 
>  
>