Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Tue, 10 April 2018 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EEA12D88E; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 DRxUO0h4cfM3; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD0B312D870; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B2B568B0DE570; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:01:10 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 20:01:12 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.168]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.179]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:01:01 -0700
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang)" <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
CC: "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org" <draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01
Thread-Index: AdPQbmJS5UIwaCdyQOi13NXEt2f0CgAUO8tMAAIAQbEABxVa3AAGb2mg
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:01:00 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173CFCFFCF@sjceml521-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF8AB65D061@DGGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <01e901d3d0bf$2c2aa6c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> 0D43E321-1B63-4452-AF5A-88226E49D808 <02b701d3d0e3$89291180$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <02b701d3d0e3$89291180$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.83]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/WoQHTJkKDwP7dNfL1HWxz4CdS5k>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:01:40 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks again for your suggestion. We will follow-up with that. 

In regards to why GE is defined here is because of the MEF L1 Conn. Service attribute work has that. So we are not re-inventing but follow MEF definition. 
You  may raise this issue to MEF L1 folks per Daniele's email to CCAMP from last week. 

Hope this helps. 

Thanks.
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 10:49 AM
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>; Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang) <zhangfatai@huawei.com>; ccamp@ietf.org
Cc: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01

Lee

I am suggesting that this should not be one I-D at all but should be split into two I-D, with the body of one I-D containing from
          identity protocol-type {
to
          /* coding func needs to expand for Fiber Channel, SONET, SDH */ or perhaps as far as
            "ER4-PMD-clause-88 Optical Interface function for 100GBASE-R PCS-82"; (these last I am less familiar with compared to GigE, STM, OC etc))

with the other I-D being more or less
        grouping uni-attributes {
to
        }//service top container

that is, the list of protocol types, at least, are likely to be needed by other CCAMP RFC and perhaps by other WG RFC - MPLS, say - and so belong in a separate RFC.

It does the IETF no good to have Gigabit Ethernet defined in many different places without good cause, and I struggle to think of such a cause.

I do not think that having two modules, one types, one data, in the single RFC would form a good basis for ongoing work (unlike, say, microwave radio where having two YANG modules in one RFC seems ok since the scope for reuse of the 'enumerations' seems more limited).

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leeyoung" <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; "Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang)"
<zhangfatai@huawei.com>; <ccamp@ietf.org>
Cc: <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; <draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on
draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01


Hi Tom,

Thank you for your comment.
I agree with you. We can improve the model using types statement instead of the enumeration of the list.

I think WG adoption is just a starting point not a completion of the draft and it's model. Please suggest other concerns so that the draft and the model can be improved.

Thanks.
Young (on behalf of co-authors)


From:t.petch
To:Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang),ccamp@ietf.org, Cc:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org,draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org,
Date:2018-04-10 06:30:24
Subject:Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on
draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01

Mmmm

I can't help thinking that this I-D may indicate a failure of the WG to be a WG:-(

I see a very long list of enumerations/identities for Gigabit Ethernet, Fiber channel, STM, OC, etc

Surely a layer one Connectivity Service Model is not going to be the only place where these are needed (Gigabit Ethernet already exists is some form) so what I think that a WG should be doing is to produce a 'types' module for generic use, IETF and even non-IETF, the way in which the Netmod WG has done for Interfaces, and other WGs - CCAMP - did many years earlier for MIB Modules.

And, albeit of less import, there are a significant number of places where this I-D does not conform with YANG Guidelines.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang)" <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: <ccamp@ietf.org>
Cc: <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; <draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:01 AM
Subject: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01


Hi all,
We now have the IPR declaration replies from all the authors/contributors (Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang/history
/) and no IPR was disclosed against this document.
This starts a two weeks poll on making
[draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01] a CCAMP working group document.
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support" and a motivation for your reply, mandatory for the "not support" and nice to have for the "support".
The polling ends on April 24th , 2018.

Thanks
Fatai & Daniele




------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>