Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft

Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net> Sun, 01 November 2020 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ggrammel@juniper.net>
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 BE5973A1072; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 03:02:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=idrZ16Wn; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=gmihXtco
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 wmpepagBNDZn; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 03:01:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55DB23A1070; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 03:01:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108160.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0A1B0daA012727; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 03:01:47 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=Qf1Zqrd/79xY4RxTbGLS727N52mK+82A810qn6PaMVg=; b=idrZ16Wn8O9hoXJ7XqSxa1KlbfmaZjXWHEMAxy477nKb7AmOAATITRwPF3R3nsaw+H8g dt0rDxCggTMgCSb+TVW4yXh9juZEMRZ48wlRVQSs12n/gZoCtpdMpiwOTmpBKFJYaVnZ rhGEbnRG+4kQSEVouZvx8WsgH7YgCZwfU0JUvN3e5AcROVWQv6zFsBJDd5/L1yL8ouc1 bufeDR5ODKzDCSEbVafV4lN95/AkBrZ6BV6uzQV377yyTYnYQJb70oEXgJBmBrY36dn1 2eF4W/46svBg6mBL9PGbgSf8SW1KNABrP1iDtUCt8d3WcymstYwkuqUCd4exHkhrsOmF 3Q==
Received: from nam11-bn8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam11lp2169.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.58.169]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 34h5ufs6up-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 01 Nov 2020 03:01:46 -0800
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=QxCH5635KLqi69SDrx6ZmuBttMP1xDo9PSEan0TZHqpYE2X2yFp7W3+fLpd/RYnj15N9K+E4EbwNvYXXZXPWSXu7v0bn0yPrQkuldtglNlk2Un8pJJTlJNSZjYkIM9LpEODPLOYSIvl/9tr/VZczgU1pso1fMf9/nII6HvXWwzogAFZvTNqU2w6K2jM/1jxTqW/NmO0cgIHNJWnbEDdDyIO4lfE4xBx7G4S4VvTTjM9HXawdk44wxd2PKRjiZNlZUmtxbU8Y3ZFxaBa+4do+ablMNh+R8qXMi1zBE+kzJnbgc4mUl5eE7Ky0jSaXEO9pRzkAneJ9PVpb6GAwcIsQcA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Qf1Zqrd/79xY4RxTbGLS727N52mK+82A810qn6PaMVg=; b=Q2Lz9LsANZ2pF0vmRgDa4bWH9uTAVBFkeLskEVmkPQw741eLERwoT6c/jbyb88OMa2GKoPlZhlpdjN9GBIz/fh4MnfWYE3GNnTuUWB75Kh+PSpN/f+/cSfstPt+oRzje0Z+0IES4yKUTAtsHSWAm7PxSYyxjLHg86FEICSqwOsWmTJ6FiQOe4HLtlXo5TTeCy73J9+2yNZBPRg/9hkrJw0mt5XvX1RSf8QsJ3mqAeG8yhZ/WXvOzZZj2RglnM888R4oLrDLdDDsktLw/JSDWZSml5cuz7PZFkxCSZjWMdorXCL23dLhGyPgQqci2nguGOplwP1iZzuMxx83qLX99Ww==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=juniper.net; dkim=pass header.d=juniper.net; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Qf1Zqrd/79xY4RxTbGLS727N52mK+82A810qn6PaMVg=; b=gmihXtco6JpZTytz7HHGNd3VmYYlEIXWVKbE9RyRGdNS//k8sjANbP4kqoG9FRrb2FSMQvxhPK9xQGhwCveTo2GaIl8NPlghAh/53hCzFF+O0/dIsp5W2EHKTKO37P6ueB8wWCvRMYWN8l0Bv2BQA4dRelN1CPKLASqvJx+fxTs=
Received: from DM6PR05MB6939.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:204::13) by DM6PR05MB6346.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:12e::10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3541.10; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 11:01:41 +0000
Received: from DM6PR05MB6939.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a0c8:4528:eef1:70f6]) by DM6PR05MB6939.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a0c8:4528:eef1:70f6%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3541.010; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 11:01:41 +0000
From: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>
To: "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
CC: Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com>, Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft
Thread-Index: AQHWrhFEc+86QuZ2hkCgLsn8z48T9amwU1WAgAEg6QCAAb0hgA==
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2020 11:01:40 +0000
Message-ID: <F52906B1-B3FB-4EB0-A2CA-D1B2A453C38A@juniper.net>
References: <E3FA7667-4767-4DC6-9F08-210FB254F629@juniper.net> <af767563835443ce889b7b05afc5b87d@huawei.com> <379ed6ba-a3da-82a2-d867-148c8070da9a@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <379ed6ba-a3da-82a2-d867-148c8070da9a@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.42.20101102
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=ef170ef5-b8f9-424a-8c73-da4e14dbfb94; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-11-01T09:32:30Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=Juniper Business Use Only;MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true;
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [193.110.49.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 10ae7dcf-4ae1-4deb-ecfa-08d87e558322
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB6346:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR05MB6346ED404F20B3B8C10D153CCE130@DM6PR05MB6346.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: FGa1gcQsWsW++0HKQtYnfZGQauv+j0XF97bAvwp2349p8CV3tMDfeKZ/mmmhsCAkcjQVXccXLyQgHCmpWLb4oJmt1c/AZB+r4sm4uFciZ260yi+67YWAdVwfnkgmonMz9TWNCarKkMbExUOddwTjyM9tPYbgbq2cdJNPjDhJfg7DegARNpNwq45npifpy+1rWccJEsbt+3XoJ5MznQ+Hz2gvDkkzQilCoFHIkyChYQmg/lMqGANdsLpsjMhcgk2iR/faGq5rHSVeRzx2U4gUmZd3ocpdbvJdefEgNqpRTsdJuVRes3o8A2n7bgZxYLYnsKhVeggppPdaIpjm1ZsbQAFF9yYYn7XPRWMsO4+bxkxBw9SWP5GWaJQqj8UWbOiv8owQnzJyD0RohWyfp+bLOA==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DM6PR05MB6939.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(346002)(316002)(2616005)(86362001)(2906002)(478600001)(6486002)(5660300002)(36756003)(6506007)(33656002)(83380400001)(53546011)(6512007)(30864003)(166002)(8676002)(110136005)(54906003)(66556008)(186003)(91956017)(66476007)(66446008)(26005)(4326008)(8936002)(76116006)(966005)(64756008)(71200400001)(66946007)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: Nw6JvajbByO/Ksud89J1JXZ9qb7KTuJ+a2dlVpYq5D5tlfacTvIdCVkcsuceX7kpgB/ascITVtaBcsuUZoVBLHKiNMJecBXr3Y/jHUqvj0QLzWLq71hIiwi5YR5H6XhkE+iIb2X46jDE6C5eN4GWHJy8G2TEgprVMywC5YpwMWZJqgU123tFriYaRPpm8QYXxrubAWLURO41hEqNznB9NpL63crXeHsAKP+PP80EzKvNqk2+zN9vEJrEUTer/pUL6Isye1XFEfGpqoimI2jZkEu6Lcol8VJe78PsKlShGLEuoKrPA1biDaztq5FJjp2Xd0jOtsMBXN8hsrptobrGwfZqk3xWMRU1q7vmOHy+fkXmE3kyvjhi6F5UcXWWsZ177bEIp2SCCQG6NsQI6oC6H7y1Gs2Kpez5N7ZUxiU338q/DNtWWYmrYdS2xgH+/aSLUYE17azJKZnUu8LMnvMd+r4wdNqxNl1AN8AiGD9SqP5z+owAnQq9Uq3ii/BY8ZxG4eKMBWCho05y2Ip/MSjC2mPxviFT8CK48KSO7yj3g5S45oNmjhzXv5BAhDiIydNCTxMy2rzC9BukMYM3WtttL9KUx0rSCS8/zmxm5cJcz09j02FV5YbMxUEDXZhUy4HNBveUx+UdaF6+i5RJ9C0Ixw==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F52906B1B3FB4EB0A2CAD1B2A453C38Ajunipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6PR05MB6939.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 10ae7dcf-4ae1-4deb-ecfa-08d87e558322
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Nov 2020 11:01:40.9429 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: RDC4fY27E0Qoo876cssHpbW2V5rZ1VR6o5KtjuzbWszHgX522JCXlw3QoxpBIzjKHMb5Ht4B7ZHD8lwbgphX1A==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB6346
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.312, 18.0.737 definitions=2020-11-01_01:2020-10-30, 2020-10-31 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2011010088
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/bS_MP2Z0PTgmyHsIxK5dDEN3gOk>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 01 Nov 2020 11:02:01 -0000

It would be good to tune the heat of the down by a few centigrade. Why spending time writing definitions, getting agreement  and rewriting again in less than 24h?  The core of the discussion is where to hang parameters in a YANG-tree in a consistent manner. How exciting is this?

The minimum we should strive for in IETF is to come up with a consistent model. To do so, it is good engineering practice to first agree on the problem. That said, I am happy that apparently the Case-A and Case-B description laid out in my previous mail turned out not to be contentious.

About the issue of “organizational mode”:

  1.  Case-A: AFAIK the most common and Transponder Model today is OpenConfig, which uses a single identifier for the operational-mode. The use is simple because it can be used as a matching criteria to make sure the two transponders at each end interoperate (given the OLS is within spec).
  2.  Case-B: proposes a series of additional criteria that must be met by adding explicit parameters such as frequency range, power-range etc. So the simple matching rule is no more sufficient and additional parameters must be checked to assess compatibility.
I think it is a fair ask to hear from the CCAMP-WG if we are happy to ditch the OpenConfig way and  implement Case-B.

About the issue of “where to put the explicit parameters”:

  1.  Case-A: puts all explicit parameters in the explicit mode and provides a leafref to Organizational modes. Explicit min/max parameters can be liked to an Organizational mode by referencing the organizational mode from the explicit mode. Organizational modes continue to be used just like Application codes as a matching condition.
  2.  Case-B: puts a subset of the parameters also defined in the explicit mode into the Organizational mode. By doing so we now have duplicated parameters in operational and explicit mode.
Structurally this creates a conflict, because it is not clear which definition takes precedence in a matching condition. It is this structural issue we need to address to move forward.

About the parameter set of the “Organizational mode”:

  1.  Case-A: allows to use any set of explicit parameters to add more information to organizational modes as a reference
  2.  Base-B: allows a small subset of parameters to be used to further define the organizational mode. This set is fixed as described in case-B.
As the selection criteria for the set of parameters has not been disclosed, it is difficult to understand whether the list remains such short or is growing much longer over time. It would be good to get the sense of the WG on that aspect too.

Cheers

Gert






From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com>
Organization: Nokia
Date: Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 10:28
To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>om>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Thanks, Italo, for your contribution to the technical discussion!

I would like to emphasize that the text on GitHub ( see https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues/29#issuecomment-719503150) tries
to provide the technical justification for the modeling approach taken for the organizational mode option - here is the text, which was referenced in Italo's mail:

Organizational Mode:
Organizations like operator groups, industry fora, or equipment vendors can define organizational modes, which will allow these organizations to make use of advanced transceiver capabilities going beyond existing standardized application codes. Such an organizational mode is identified by the organization-identifier attribute defining the scope and an operational-mode that is meaningful within the scope of the organization. Hence, the two attributes must always be considered together. Two transceivers are inter-operable, if they have at least one (organization-identifier, operational-mode) pair in common and if the supported carrier frequency and power attributes have a matching range. This is a necessary condition for path computation in the context of organizational modes. An operational mode is a transceiver preset (a configuration with well-defined parameter values) subsuming several transceiver properties including:
• FEC type
• Modulation scheme
• Encoding (mapping of bit patterns to symbols in the constellation diagram)
• Baud rate (symbol rate)
• Carrier bandwidth (typically measured in GHz)

The major reason for these transceiver presets is the fact that the attribute values typically cannot be configured independently and are therefore advertised as supported operational mode capabilities.
It is the responsibility of the organization to assign operational modes and to ensure that operational modes are unique and not ambiguous within the scope of the organization.
In addition to the transceiver properties subsumed by the operational mode, optical power and carrier frequency related properties are modeled separately, i.e., outside of the operational mode. This modeling approach allows transponders using different transceiver variants (e.g. optical modules) with slightly different power and/or frequency range properties to interoperate without defining separate operational modes. Different optical modules (pluggables) from different suppliers typically have slightly different input and output power ranges or may have slightly different carrier frequency tuning ranges.
The received channel power and the received total power are two parameters that can be measured by the receiver and can be provided by the transceiver in order to allow a controller to determine the expected performance of the end-to-end service taking into account the optical impairments along the path.

Moreover, implementations exist that are based on the same modeling approach and hence it is already field proven!


Thanks,
Dieter

On 30.10.2020 17:14, Italo Busi wrote:

Hi Gert,



Let me try to look at this issue from a different perspective.



I think the objective of our work is to define a YANG model for the optical specification methodologies which are used in the field to represent the capabilities of the transponders.



I do not think that it is in the scope of our work to discuss the optical specification methodologies other than understanding how they could be used for path computation (ensuring interoperability between the sender and receiver) and modelled using YANG.



As far as I have understood from past discussion, we have agreed to support three optical specification methodologies which are used by existing optical interfaces implementations and we have named them as application code (ITU-T G.698.2), organizational mode and explicit mode.



After some rounds of discussions and questions for clarification, the latest proposed text to describe the behavior of the organization mode has been prepared on github:



https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues/29#issuecomment-719503150



I think this updated description has improved the clarity of how the operational mode are implemented and, in particular that:



"Two transceivers are inter-operable, if they have at least one (organization-identifier, operational-mode) pair in common and if the supported carrier frequency and power attributes have a matching range."



As a consequence, I think that the YANG model defined in "Case A" below does not work (since it does not provide enough information to check that " the supported carrier frequency and power attributes have a matching range ") while the one defined in "Case B" works properly.



This text describing the operational mode behavior has been provided by people who have implemented it.



Therefore, I think we can update the draft with the changes discussed in the last few weeks incorporating the definitions capturing our current understanding of how these optical specification methodologies (application code, organizational mode and explicit mode) behave and the YANG model aligned with our current understanding (i.e., based on "Case B" below).



Since we are not yet in WG LC stage, we still have plenty of time to update both the description and the YANG model based on the feedbacks we receive from data plane experts.



My 2 cents



Italo (as co-author of the draft)



-----Original Message-----

From: Gert Grammel [mailto:ggrammel@juniper.net]

Sent: giovedì 29 ottobre 2020 17:34

To: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>

Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft



We discussed today a difference in the interpretation of the model related to https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues/29 and its interpretation. The different interpretation lead to different computation requirements.

The design team appreciates feedback which of both Cases is preferred and what consideration led to the preference





Case A:

======

https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues#issuecomment-677768528 from August 20 documented the structure of the model:

+--ro supported-modes* [mode-id]

  +--ro mode-id

  +--ro (mode)?

  |  +--:(G.698.2)

  |  |  +--ro standard-mode?                standard-mode

  |  +--:(organizational-mode)

  |  |  +--ro operational-mode?             operational-mode

  |  |  +--ro organization-identifier?      vendor-identifier

➢ |  +--:(explicit-mode)

➢ |    +--ro supported-standard-mode*? leafref

  |     +--ro modulation-types                   identityref

  |     ......

This snippet would allow to use standard mode or operational mode as a simple matching criteria for compatibility i.e. two transponders with Operational-mode=X and suitable line parameters would interoperate.

In case of “explicit” mode, the set of parameters provided, can support one or more application code/organizational mode, that means this set of parameters if applied to configure the transceiver, is aligned with one or more application code/organizational mode.

(Note that there are no additional parameters associated to the organizational mode in this case)



Case B:

======



https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/blob/master/ietf-optical-impairment-topology.tree contains additional parameters to the Operational Mode that are also replicated in the explicit mode. Those parameters are related to the min/max ranges which are allowed.



  +--ro supported-mode* [mode-id]

                +--ro mode-id                      string

                +--ro (mode)

                   +--:(G.698.2)

                   |  +--ro standard-mode?         standard-mode

                   +--:(organizational-mode)

                   |  +--ro organizational-mode

                   |     +--ro operational-mode?

                   |     |       operational-mode

                   |     +--ro organization-identifier?

                   |     |       organization-identifier

                   |     +--ro min-central-frequency?

                   |     |       frequency-thz

                   |     +--ro max-central-frequency?

                   |     |       frequency-thz

                   |     +--ro minimum-channel-spacing?

                   |     |       frequency-ghz

                   |     +--ro tx-channel-power-min?      dbm-t

                   |     +--ro tx-channel-power-max?      dbm-t

                   |     +--ro rx-channel-power-min?      dbm-t

                   |     +--ro rx-channel-power-max?      dbm-t

                   |     +--ro rx-total-power-max?        dbm-t

                   +--:(explicit-mode)

                      +--ro explicit-mode

                         +--ro supported-modes

                         |  +--ro supported-application-codes*

                         |  |       -> ../../mode-id

                         |  +--ro supported-organizational-modes*

                         |          -> ../../mode-id

                         +--ro line-coding-bitrate?

                         |       identityref

                     <snip>

                         +--ro min-central-frequency?

                         |       frequency-thz

                         +--ro max-central-frequency?

                         |       frequency-thz

                         +--ro minimum-channel-spacing?

                         |       frequency-ghz

                         +--ro tx-channel-power-min?

                         |       dbm-t

                         +--ro tx-channel-power-max?

                         |       dbm-t

                         +--ro rx-channel-power-min?

                         |       dbm-t

                         +--ro rx-channel-power-max?

                         |       dbm-t

                         +--ro rx-total-power-max?

                                 dbm-t



In this case, interoperability can only be provided if the organizational code on each side match AND all other explicit parameters defined in the organizational-code have a matching range.

(Note that min/max parameters are associated to the organizational mode AND to the explicit mode in this case)







Juniper Business Use Only

_______________________________________________

CCAMP mailing list

CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Qf7o1-a2YfLkPqzntQzH4eVYGLpUDj-1ysELXfiLRhkWu-G-RrJBibxJipiVa6Bx$>


Juniper Business Use Only