[CCAMP] R: I-D Action: draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-03.txt

"BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.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 4F78321F86A5 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.821
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.376, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 B0Kj1zg-5EYc for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9B121F86A4 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p6KEq8GA023874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:56:23 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.39]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:55:36 +0200
From: "BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "fu.xihua@zte.com.cn" <fu.xihua@zte.com.cn>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:55:35 +0200
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-03.txt
Thread-Index: AcxGk68lljuTrtoCQcS6ggXFly+yEgAVcUog
Message-ID: <F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D817855D99@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20110708115409.21432.8658.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <OF488CBFF6.6264695E-ON482578D3.0016E006-482578D3.00176078@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OF488CBFF6.6264695E-ON482578D3.0016E006-482578D3.00176078@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: it-IT
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F050945A8D8E9A44A71039532BA344D817855D99FRMRSSXCHMBSB1d_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.80
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] R: I-D Action: draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-03.txt
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: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:56:31 -0000

Hi Xihua,

I read the draft and I found it , as the first time, very interesting but a little unclear in some points.
Chapter 2.2.1
You say that boundary node “could” not determine which kind of ODUk FA-LSP should be triggered but you do not put any brief explanation of that. I think for completeness some words should be usefull.

Chapter 3.2.1
Not clear the sentence about L bit : MUST be included vs. SHOULD be included . I suppose you mean SHOULD not be included , Correct ?

Chapter 3.2.3
In chapter 3.2 you mention the possibility by ERBO to signal : FA nodes end points, and FA/component link.
Is the signal type sub-object devoted to this second scope ? I f yes, why named it explicitly (e.g. FA signal type ) and not just signal type , that is a little misleading. I would avoid the terms sub-layers already discusse in the mailing list since there is a different terminology and meaning for that in ITU. Let’s say level multiplexing or something along this lines.

Chapter 3.2.5
Not clear the sentence related to ERO : “If it is necessary , it must also extract the server layer/sub-layer routing information form ERO based on a pair of node. “ Could you clarify .

Chapter 3.3.1 and others :
L bit field : again the is the sentence Must be excluded vs Should be avoided . I do not believe a good idead permit anyway to use one resource that I’m considering to be excluded . I mean: it implies in case the SHOULD usage an interworking problem, right ?

Thanks

Sergio


________________________________
Da: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
Inviato: mercoledì 20 luglio 2011 6.15
A: ccamp@ietf.org
Oggetto: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-03.txt


Hi All,

We updated this draft.
We added some new sections, suchs as the "requirement identification" and "boundary nodes determination mechanism".
Some content are related to OTN multi-layer scenarios.
If you review and have some comments, pls let us know.

Xihua


internet-drafts@ietf.org
发件人:  i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org

2011-07-08 下午 07:54
请答复 给
internet-drafts@ietf.org


收件人

i-d-announce@ietf.org

抄送



主题

I-D Action: draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-03.txt










A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

                Title           : RSVP-TE Extension for MRN/MLN Application
                Author(s)       : Xihua Fu
                         Qilei Wang
                         Yuanlin Bao
                         Ruiquan Jing
                         Xiaoli Huo
                Filename        : draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-03.txt
                Pages           : 16
                Date            : 2011-07-08

  [RFC5212] defines a Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN).
  [RFC4206] introduces a region boundary determination algorithm and a
  Hierarchy LSP (H-LSP) creation method.  However, in some scenarios,
  there must be some additional information to facilitate hierarchy LSP
  creation.  This document extends RSVP-TE to meet this requirement.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-03.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-03.txt
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt