Re: [CCAMP] 答复: POLLING - draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-02 - Encoding Options

["Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi WG,

I'd vote for solution C.

But looking at the doc. I see that the Central Frequency Granularity (6.25GHz) and the Slot Width Granularity (12.5GHz)
Are fixed values.  My suggestion is to make them variable because sooner or later the technology will evolve and
Those values will change for sure.

Best Regards,

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


Gabriele Galimberti
Principal Engineer
Cisco Photonics Srl


via S.Maria Molgora, 48 C
20871 - Vimercate (MB)
Italy
www.cisco.com/global/IT/<http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>

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














From: CCAMP <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Zhenghaomian <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:34 AM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "CCAMP ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [CCAMP] 答复: POLLING - draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-02 - Encoding Options

Hi, Daniele and CCAMPers,

As an author, I would like to keep the draft as it is, or alternatively speaking, keep it consistent with [RFC7579] (previous [GEN-ENCODE]) for label set field description, even if this is a new defined TLV.

I am interested in, if any implementation already support 3 methods as defined in [RFC7579], how much additional effort is needed to support 3 methods in this draft? If not much, I suggest we keep them all.

There won’t be inter-op problem as long as standardized.

Best wishes,
Haomian

发件人: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Daniele Ceccarelli
发送时间: 2015年7月27日 17:14
收件人: CCAMP ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
主题: [CCAMP] POLLING - draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-02 - Encoding Options

Working group,

at the meeting in Prague we received a comment on the high number of existing options for “available resources” encoding in OSPF for flexi-grid.
The draft actually supports (in line with the WSON encoding) three methods:


a)      Inclusive/Exclusive label ranges

b)      Inclusive/Exclusive label Lists

c)       Bitmap label set

What we’d like to hear from the working group is if the worry for too many alternatives is shared and, if so, which ones are the preferred.
Please choose one of the following options and say why:

Option 1: a) only
Option 2: b) only
Option 3: c) only
Option 4: a)+b)+c) (i.e. keep the draft as it is)
Option 5: any combination of a),b),c). If you choose 5 please say which options you want to keep and which ones to drop.

Thanks,
Daniele