[CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-04
Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com> Mon, 04 July 2016 12:50 UTC
Return-Path: <zhenghaomian@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 4FCB012D0EE for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 05:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.636
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] 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 mPgL-cY4B8MU for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 05:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D544912D0F4 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 05:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CSA33046; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 12:50:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SZXEMA419-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.37) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:50:03 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.189]) by SZXEMA419-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:49:49 +0800
From: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
To: Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: 答复: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-04
Thread-Index: AQHR1eZ4gR+ba68NP0miE761SPeL76AIOPuQ
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 12:49:48 +0000
Message-ID: <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A438D3F54C@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF85CDBA104@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <be6989bb-6327-9795-8501-f6ba1340e90a@nokia.com> <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A438D3EF8E@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com> <bb37c3f5-5f87-37c4-53d0-7884af6a2e56@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <bb37c3f5-5f87-37c4-53d0-7884af6a2e56@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.46.75.175]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A438D3F54CSZXEMA504MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090203.577A5B7D.0021, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.7.189, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: c809409fcc78e1e21582b827999091a5
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ZlZcWjcEZtAuC3YlK-VoyL9zdBY>
Subject: [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-04
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 12:50:11 -0000
Hi, Dieter, Thanks for the comments, the sentences you suggested will be updated in the next version. Best wishes, Haomian 发件人: Dieter Beller [mailto:Dieter.Beller@nokia.com] 发送时间: 2016年7月4日 19:23 收件人: Zhenghaomian; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org) 抄送: Fatai Zhang 主题: Re: 答复: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-04 Hi Haomian, thanks for you swift reply. Here is my suggestion: add the following 2 sentences at the end of the last paragraph in section 4.1: As the "Max LSP Bandwidth at priority x" fields in the generic part of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor [RFC4203] are not meaningful for flex-grid DWDM links, the values of these fields MUST be set to zero and MUST be ignored. The Switching Capability Specific Information as defined below provides the corresponding information for flex-grid DWDM links. Thanks, Dieter On 01.07.2016 09:03, Zhenghaomian wrote: Hi, Dieter, Thanks for your comments, please see my reply inline: 发件人: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Dieter Beller 发送时间: 2016年6月30日 16:50 收件人: Fatai Zhang; CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>) 主题: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-04 Hi Fatai, CCAMPers, I've reviewed this document and I have the following comment: Section 4.1: 4.1. ISCD Extensions for Flexi-grid Value Type ----- ---- 152 (TBA by IANA) Flexi-Grid-LSC capable Switching Capability and Encoding values MUST be used as follows: Switching Capability = Flexi-Grid-LSC Encoding Type = lambda [as defined in RFC3471<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3471>] When Switching Capability and Encoding fields are set to values as stated above, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor MUST be interpreted as in [RFC4203<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4203>] with the optional inclusion of one or more Switching Capability Specific Information sub-TLVs. draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-04 defines the Switching Capability Specific Information sub-TLVs, but the ISCD as defined in RFC4203 contains "Max LSP Bandwidth at priority x" fields in the generic ISCD part and these fields do IMHO not make sense for flex grid (see below). The draft does not say how these fields shall be filled. [Haomian] I agree with what you said, the ‘Max LSP Bandwidth at priority x’ don’t make sense for flexi-grid, so we need to skip this in ISCD section. You are right we need to specify how to fill in even if we skip this section. How about we add the following statement in the end of section 4.1? Given the Switching Capability set to Flexi-Grid-LSC, the ‘Max LSP Bandwidth at priority x (x from 0 to 7)’ defined in [RFC4203] MUST be fulfilled with 0 and ignored. Do you think it’s clear enough? Excerpt from RFC4203: 1.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type 15) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The format of the value field is as shown below: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Switching Capability-specific information | | (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the following values: 1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4203#section-3.1.1> 3.1.1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4203#section-3.1.1> of [GMPLS-SIG<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4203#ref-GMPLS-SIG>]. Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in the IEEE floating point format [IEEE<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4203#ref-IEEE>], with priority 0 first and priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The content of the Switching Capability specific information field depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. Minor nits: page 5 typo: 'Chanel Spacing' instead of 'Channel Spacing' [Haomian] Thanks, will update in the next version. page 7 editorial: 'Flexi-Grid-LSC capable': capable should be removed (already included in the LSC abbreviation). [Haomian] Thanks, will use ‘Flexi-Grid-LSC’ instead of ‘Flexi-Grid-LSC capable’, the replacement will also be applied in other a few places in the draft. Thanks, Dieter On 25.06.2016 04:35, Fatai Zhang wrote: Hi all, This starts a two week working group last call on [draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-04]. The working group last call ends on Friday, July 8th. Please send your comments to the CCAMP mailing list. As is always the case, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome. This is useful and important, even from authors. Since the WG chairs and secretary are co-authors/co-contributor of this draft, if anyone is willing to be the shepherd of the document, please volunteer. Note that no IPR was disclosed against this document. Thanks Fatai and Daniele _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flex… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] 答复: 答复: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-… Zhenghaomian
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-… Dieter Beller
- [CCAMP] 答复: WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flex… Zhenghaomian
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flex… Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flex… Dieter Beller
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible… Fatai Zhang