Re: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext

["Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Lei, Gabriele,

  Thank you for the comments. Please see my reply inline:

From: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 2014年4月30日 15:42
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Zhangxian (Xian)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext

I agree with LeWang,

Xian:  I think Lei has made a good point, i.e., CFG and SWG currently has a fixed relationship.  Will remove one field (i.e., CFG) to avoid carrying duplicated information in the next rotation of the draft. If anyone has different opinions, please speak up.

I'd also add that the MaxWidth field must be more than 8 bits (e.g. 16 bits).
This is to align this parameter to the recent ITU liaison reply on m value range.

Xian: this point has been raised before and has been agreed with (see: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15770.html). This will be reflected in the next update of this draft.

Cheers,
Xian

Best Regards,

Gabriele
[http://www.cisco.com/swa/i/logo.gif]


Gabriele Galimberti
Technical Leader
Cisco Photonics Srl

Via Philips, 12
20900 - Monza (MI)
Italy
www.cisco.com/global/IT/<http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Phone :[phone]
Mobile :[phone]
Fax :[phone]












From: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:12 AM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Xian Zhang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext


Hi, Xian and CCAMPers

I have one comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext:

In section 4.3, page 7, the encoding of "Port Label Restriction sub-TLV" is listed as follows.

     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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | MatrixID      | RstType = TBA |            Reserved           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     C.F.G     |    S.W.G      |   Min Width   |   Max Width   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

In my opinion, it is not necessary to put the field "C.F.G" into this TLV, because that: C.F.G could be deduced from S.W.G (C.F.G = S.W.G / 2).  Would anyone give one example where C.F.G != S.W.G / 2 ?

--------------------------------------------
LeiWang

ZTE
Bearer Network Product Pre_research Department,
Wireline R&D Insititute
Cell phone:[phone]
Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
      [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
      [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
----------------------------------------------