Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers

Lou,

 Understood. All powers to the process.

 I felt that there is  insufficient use cases/requirements discussion/coverage in the framework document at this moment. We need more active discussion inputs from wider CCAMP group. Otherwise, I don't see why we have not been looking at the solution documents for a long time. 

If we are ready to look at solutions in the Flexible Grid area, the authors of the IDs ("Generalized Label for Super-Channel Assignment on Flexible Grid" and 
"OSPFTE extension to support GMPLS for Flex Grid") are  planning to make updates (possibly before the next IETF):

a)  Terminology alignment (replace the term "Super-Channel" with an appropriate alternate term/definition based on last IETF meeting discussion)
b)  Clearly separate out the label solution draft into a "single frequency slot" and "multiple frequency slots" cases. Note the single frequency slot case is in alignment with ITU frequency slot (m,n) definitions except  m field is 16-bit field).
c) Some terminology related updates in the OSPF draft. BTW, we believe, this is one of the earliest solution drafts for flexgrid related OSPF extensions.

We also would like to solicit feedback from the working and the next steps for these drafts.

Best regards,
Iftekhar
-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 5:29 PM
To: Iftekhar Hussain; Daniel King; 'CCAMP'
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers

Iftekhar,

Speaking purely from a process standpoint: adoption is the start of work on a topic, not a codification of an end state.  This is why we typically ask if a document reflects a "good starting point for WG activity" when discussing the adoption of a draft.

Again, speaking from a general perspective, I certainly don't think the process requires discussion/adoption to be blocked while a framework (or even requirement) document has some open points.

Lou

On January 30, 2014 6:26:40 PM Iftekhar Hussain <IHussain@infinera.com>
wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for the update. In my view, there are number of areas which 
> still needs to be addressed in the framework document (e.g., control 
> plane
> requirements) before we move toward solution drafts.
>
> BR,
> Iftekhar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel King [mailto:daniel@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 
> January 29,
> 2014 9:06 AM
> To: 'CCAMP'
> Subject: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label 
> Switching Routers
>
> Hi CCAMP'rs,
>
> The authors are planning a revision of this I-D before London, but the 
> only changes will be the addition of an Implementation Status section 
> as per RFC6982.
>
> It seems to us that this I-D is stable and that there are no further 
> technical issues. The label format documented in the I-D has been 
> picked up by the RSVP-TE extensions draft and the ongoing OSPF work.
> We would like to take this opportunity to solicit feedback from the 
> working
> group:
>
> - Are there any changes you would like to see in the draft? - Are you 
> happy with the label format described? - What do you think the next 
> steps should be for this draft?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan (for the authors)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>