Re: [CCAMP] [CCAMP WG] #50: Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs decimal in GMPLS

Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangfatai@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 2CD1121F90DF for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n3EzLViMlrGR for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38EA721F923C for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARI14375; Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:43:08 +0100
Received: from SZXEML409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.136) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:43:26 +0100
Received: from SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.222]) by szxeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.136]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 13 May 2013 17:43:15 +0800
From: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org>, "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP WG] #50: Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs decimal in GMPLS
Thread-Index: AQHOTBCPvUtEBzyTAUGIoOMWCmYBDJkCQl2AgAChYyA=
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:15 +0000
Message-ID: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317BA8E@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <059.82d98e9dee0226e015a3852ed4c8eece@trac.tools.ietf.org> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C70F8@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C70F8@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.72.159]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [CCAMP WG] #50: Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs decimal in GMPLS
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:43:50 -0000

Hi Daniele,

I think it is better to use the reference format when mentioning some data plane documents, e.g., [G709-2012].





Best Regards

Fatai


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:03 PM
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org; lberger@labn.net
Cc: ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org; CCAMP
Subject: RE: [CCAMP WG] #50: Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs decimal in GMPLS

Lou, CCAMP,

This is the proposed text for the info-model wrt the decimal vs hexadecimal encoding issue.



13.  Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs decimal in
     GMPLS considerations

   Encoding in GMPLS foresses the utilization of hexadecimal values
   format "0x" while in the data plane documents, like G.709
   reccomendation, the format usually used is the decimal one (e.g.
   G-PID in RSVP-TE vs Payload Type in G.709). 

BR
Daniele & Sergio

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ccamp issue tracker [mailto:trac+ccamp@trac.tools.ietf.org] 
>Sent: mercoledì 8 maggio 2013 19.22
>To: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org; 
>lberger@labn.net
>Cc: ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
>Subject: [CCAMP WG] #50: Identification of hexadecimal 
>representation in G.709 vs decimal in GMPLS
>
>#50: Identification of hexadecimal representation in G.709 vs 
>decimal in GMPLS
>
> From: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14812.html
>
>   The authors had previously stated the intent to just make this clear
>   in the signaling document.  I'd like to make an alternate proposal:
>   let's do the the obvious and have the documents simply use 
>the normal
>   (IETF) convention of using a '0x' prefix anytime a hexadecimal value
>   is represented. I believe this means that only the info-model draft
>   needs to be updated.
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------+-------------------------
>---------
>-------------------------------------+---
> Reporter:  lberger@labn.net         |      Owner:  draft-ietf-ccamp-
>     Type:  task                     |  
>otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org
> Priority:  major                    |     Status:  new
>Component:  otn-g709-info-model      |  Milestone:  Post WG Last Call
> Severity:  Waiting for Document     |    Version:
>  Update                             |   Keywords:
>-------------------------------------+-------------------------
>---------
>-------------------------------------+---
>
>Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/ticket/50>
>CCAMP WG <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/> Common Control and 
>Measurement Plane Working Group
>