Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Tue, 05 February 2013 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.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 C766721F88B2 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:09:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WOdKd0W8oksf for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:09:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1A321F8599 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:09:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3620; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360080592; x=1361290192; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=iz3pWqY+rvRPQ8A9wrJPUKhfjDobNgsqsI2OMYrLfXY=; b=FgDOct3o+M6OLp2IeE8O6yBIi4AmfocUQvSF4HZVhnzW6QhlAYFh8P7z 1P+vebyvBmmlxKwVwmzzpGlquxFnVeYZsQIlgWuivVBUw6leDi4+1CRNo b+iD6HmNevHZzcM3e4Airh3qdI19M2oul9ysX4Yw+ddwePy7WcfArsIw7 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAOotEVGtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFv2EWc4IfAQEBBG4LDAYBCBEDAQEBAQodORQJCAIEAQ0FCIgJqj+QLo0Tg2dhA6Zzgn6BbzU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,609,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="173583765"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Feb 2013 16:09:52 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r15G9qcv010660 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:09:52 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.10]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:09:51 -0600
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding
Thread-Index: AQHOAJZE7+UdZ1PNTUa08PgaVPdw+JhmLYkAgAPtjYCAACQ3AIAAUI8AgABRiACAAMtwAIAAH8IAgAAJ/4D//692gA==
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:09:51 +0000
Message-ID: <B6585D85A128FD47857D0FD58D8120D3B3C5FB@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E14504F6C@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.86.244.239]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-ID: <C8EB2C90E9B81D40AD553067A393C0C0@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding
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: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:09:53 -0000

Adding CCAMP mailing list back.

-----Original Message-----
From: "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 10:58 AM
To: "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: zali <zali@cisco.com>om>, Daniele Ceccarelli
<daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>om>,
"draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>rg>,
"draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org"
<draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding

>Lou,
>
>Did you not read Zafar's email in its entirety?  To quote the last
>paragraph:
>
>"I just wonder are we not better off keeping this field in signaling and
>adding a statement in v7 that this field is hardcoded to 100ppm.  This
>has advantage of interworking with earlier draft implementations and is
>also flexible for various (future/ unexpected) client signal types."
>
>To which I replied:
>
>"This is a very good idea.  'Per [G.874.1/2011] (or whatever is the
>correct reference) the value MUST be set to 100 ppm.'"
>
>My reply was to all of the recipients of Zafar's email.  If he was to
>make the same suggestion to the ccamp mailing list I would send the same
>email in reply to it.
>
>Irrespectively Yours,
>
>John
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:22 AM
>> To: John E Drake
>> Cc: Zafar Ali (zali); Daniele Ceccarelli; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
>> signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-
>> g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding
>> 
>> Which is a good idea?  Keeping the tolerance field or eliminating it?
>> 
>> Either way, I think you should voice your agreement/opposition to
>> Fatai's proposal on the ccamp list...
>> 
>> Lou
>> 
>> On 2/5/2013 8:28 AM, John E Drake wrote:
>> > This is a very good idea.  "Per [G.874.1/2011] (or whatever is the
>> correct reference) the value MUST be set to 100 ppm.'
>> >
>> > Irrespectively Yours,
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:zali@cisco.com]
>> >> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:21 PM
>> >> To: Lou Berger; Daniele Ceccarelli
>> >> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org;
>> >> draft-ietf- ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Poll on ODUFlex-related encoding
>> >>
>> >> Fatai, Lou, Authors:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please see in-line.
>> >>
>> >>> <snip>
>> >>> On 2/4/2013 10:40 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>> >>>> Hi Lou, all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The only reference we need to add is to G.874.1 (April 2011
>> >> amendment
>> >>>> 2) when saying that NEs will use 100ppm tolerance for every signal
>> >>>> type and that there is no need to signal tolerance any longer.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 100ppm tolerance for every signal type, is this right?  Do you mean
>> >> for
>> >>> all ODUFlex signal types? (And that now tolerance, i.e., either
>> >>> 20ppm or 100ppm, is implicit in signal type?)
>> >>
>> >> I just wonder are we not better off keeping this field in signaling
>> >> and adding a statement in v7 that this field is hardcoded to 100ppm.
>> >> This has advantage of interworking with earlier draft
>> implementations
>> >> and is also flexible for various (future/ unexpected) client signal
>> types.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >>
>> >> RegardsŠZafar
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> <snip>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>