Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 03 February 2015 13:59 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 0A17D1A0382 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:59:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 N4QEJQtlPfz3 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 898941A006B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:59:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 21537 invoked by uid 0); 3 Feb 2015 13:59:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2015 13:59:52 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id npzZ1p00J2SSUrH01pzc3z; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:59:51 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=J8Y5smXS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=Vhvw94NMJWsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=0HtSIViG9nkA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=i0EeH86SAAAA:8 a=CyRW7yT0AAAA:8 a=WUNZ9BdeMR4-110n6a8A:9 a=nD5RYZfzY6wZS5Vn:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=lbt/L9aSZIMEWlo42NcFLPXnWqWJ+hT2eeKfM+/kLeI=; b=JYJXDJvTICrt+L/WSRZgXCsHNYhdZzzfBPH1SgjmcsaElMgMwQl6RoDdC6bfK4OB11q+sDuchH9OtwsEAeMCEUrELhkJQQwBFYSegqEoj2oaSFmrC4ReDXm1h1txD0nM;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:35342 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1YIe0r-0004nu-MD; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:59:34 -0700
Message-ID: <54D0D43E.1010702@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 08:59:26 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
References: <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A6C46DC@C0010I0.coe.ntt.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C7B111@dfweml706-chm> <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A6C5EEF@C0010I0.coe.ntt.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C7C7D3@dfweml706-chm> <EB0F2EAC05E9C64D80571F2042700A2A6C6FF6@C0010I0.coe.ntt.com> <54CFEC08.7010304@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C80259@dfweml706-chm>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C80259@dfweml706-chm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/YZ2Y4YuGoP_gMV1hC9wWJyvMleU>
Cc: "'rtg-dir@ietf.org'" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "'draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.all@tools.ietf.org'" <draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.all@tools.ietf.org>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>, "'ccamp@ietf.org'" <ccamp@ietf.org>, Tomonori Takeda <tomonori.takeda@ntt.com>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
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: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 13:59:56 -0000

Young,

I guess I didn't see the new text as substantively different or more
informative than preceding text:

   ... There may be more than one matrix associated with
   a node as the node can partition the switch matrix into several sub-
   matrices for various reasons such as incremental updates, etc. When
   the matrix is partitioned into sub-matrices, it is envisioned that
   they are mutually exclusive to one another in representing which
   ports/labels are associated with each sub-matrix. This implies that
   two matrices will not have the same {src port, src label, dst port,
   dst label}.

I'd suggest directly addressing the ambiguity by revising the first
sentence and "for various reasons such as incremental updates, etc. " in
particular.  Perhaps "primarily to limit the size of any individual
information element used to represent the matrix."  or however else
you'd like to capture the intent.

Lou

On 2/2/2015 5:15 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> The original question Tomonori raised was if sub-matrices are like virtual nodes attached to connectivity matrix. The answer was no, and sub-matrix is simply a partition of connectivity matrix into smaller pieces. To that end, I added the following text in Section 2.1
>
>    Each sub-matrix is assigned a unique Matrix ID to represent a 
>    mutually exclusive set of {src port, src label, dst port, dst label} 
>    from other sub-matrices. 
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
> Young
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 3:29 PM
> To: Leeyoung
> Cc: Tomonori Takeda; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org; 'rtg-dir@ietf.org'org'; 'draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.all@tools.ietf.org'org'; 'ccamp@ietf.org'
> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
>
> Hi Young,
>
> I see you just published an update.  I have one question below.
>
> On 1/23/2015 3:01 AM, Tomonori Takeda wrote:
>> Hi Young,
>>
>> OK, thanks,
>>
>> Tomonori
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leeyoung [mailto:leeyoung@huawei.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 2:44 AM
>> To: Tomonori Takeda(武田知典); Leeyoung; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
>> Cc: 'rtg-dir@ietf.org'org'; 'draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.all@tools.ietf.org'org'; 'ccamp@ietf.org'
>> Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
>>
>> Hi Tomonori,
>>
>> Thanks for your comment. Please see in-line for my response. Please let me know if the response would satisfy you. 
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Young
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tomonori Takeda [mailto:tomonori.takeda@ntt.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:48 AM
>> To: Leeyoung; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
>> Cc: 'rtg-dir@ietf.org'org'; 'draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode.all@tools.ietf.org'org'; 'ccamp@ietf.org'org'; Tomonori Takeda
>> Subject: RE: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-16.txt
>>
>> Hi Young,
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Two follow-up questions/comments.
>> (I am fine with other points, which you already addressed in the updated draft.)
>>
>>> 2) In section 2.1, it says "two matrices will not have the same {src port, src label, dst port, dst label}". To be precise, I guess this should be > "two matrices will not have the same {src port, src label}, and two matrices will not have the same {dst port, dst label}"?
>>>
>>> YOUNG>> I think your suggestion may be too restrictive. For instance, if we have one source (port 1) and one destination (port 2) with two labels > each. Then we would have: {(1,1,2,1), (1,1,2,2), (1,2,2,1), (1,2,2,2)} I think with the current statement, we can send this info in any combination > of multiple matrices, which I think perfectly fine. With your suggestion, I would not be able send (1,1,2,1) and (1,1,2,2) together. Why would this > not be made possible? My take is as long as each submatrix represents a set of disjoint quadruples, that should be allowed.
>> My reading of "two matrices will not have the same {src port, src label, dst port, dst label}" is as follows.
>>
>> <Example A>
>>
>>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#1 --> output port=2
>>   input label=1                     output label=1
>>
>>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#2 --> output port=2
>>   input label=1                     output label=2
>>
>>   This is allowed.
>>
>> <Example B>
>>
>>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#1 --> output port=2
>>   input label=1                     output label=1
>>
>>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#2 --> output port=2
>>   input label=1                     output label=1
>>
>>   This is not allowed.
>>
>> <Example C>
>>
>>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#1 --> output port=2
>>   input label=1                     output label=1
>>
>>   input port=1  --> Submatrix#2 --> output port=2
>>   input label=2                     output label=2
>>
>>   This is allowed.
>>
>> Is above understanding correct?
>> If so, I am not sure how example A works, since I am not sure what is the indentifier to direct from input to each submatrix.
>>
>> Maybe I am mis-understanding what sub-matrix is. I thought sub-matrix is a sort of virtual node, splitting the single matrix (or switch) into smaller pieces.
> Can you explain how the revised text clarifies this point?
>
> Thanks,
> Lou
>
>> ....