Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 20 August 2013 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.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 B8E9D11E8228 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0uqAoXB68qXb for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 384FA21F9C37 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 30703 invoked by uid 0); 20 Aug 2013 14:27:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2013 14:27:33 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=xMwDPMGJweuydlbuPIEkEsHuvFc+tQGE51FkM/Lrg6Y=; b=RiAk/O0iRt4ZkljQvs06ZjXskxTGFjaKVoOGqv1CO181SopVq6SPmPeJFD+D2yHcEquIgU+z55ilNKpSHXl8Nu5h0RYH+qstHHZJz31j2mg+pUc3ilFsOsSUL7JPemFo;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:58555 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1VBmuD-0003hr-5d; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:27:33 -0600
Message-ID: <52137CD5.7000206@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:27:33 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
References: <031c01ce8b87$45b79cb0$d126d610$@olddog.co.uk> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48126BF3@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <51F94497.8010402@labn.net> <044501ce9c3d$48007250$d80156f0$@olddog.co.uk> <5212818C.8030409@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE481443D9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE481443D9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model
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: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:28:04 -0000

Daniele,
	Thanks for looking at this.  I think we're almost there.  See below for
details that hopefully let us close on this.

On 8/20/2013 3:18 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> Lou, Adrian,
> 
>>> It may be the case that only a small proportion of CCAMP is interested
>>> in IS-IS, and it may be the case that the intersection of those people
>>> with those interested in OTN is vanishingly small. If that is the case
> 
> I think that's the case
> 
>>> (I guess Lou can find out) we should excuse IS-IS in a more open and
>>> blatant way while soliciting and offering to help work on IS-IS for OTN.
> 
> I've searched the words routing and OSPF in the text. The word routing occurs 13 times (6 meaningful, i.e. not references, abstract etc) and OSPF 11 times (4 meaningful).
> 

I think you need to expand your search to include [RFC4203].

s/as defined by [RFC4203],/as defined by [RFC4203], [RFC5307],

s/[RFC4203] only allows/GMPLS OSPF [RFC4203] and GMPLS IS-IS [RFC5307]
only allow

s/tools provided by [RFC4203]/tools provided by [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]

s/the OSPF-TE extensions defined in [RFC4203] require/the routing
extensions defined in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307] require

s/[RFC4202] and [RFC4203]/[RFC4202], [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]

Can now drop:

   As far as it concerns routing, analogous considerations apply to
   IS-IS [RFC5307] but in the following only a gap analysis with respect
   to OSPF-TE is provided.

> We might focus on the meaningful ones and see where IS-IS can be brought in.
> 
> -Routing occurrence #6
>   "ODU3 H-LSP is eligible from ODU2 LSP
>    perspective since from the routing it is known that this ODU3
>    interface at node Z, supports an ODU2 termination exporting a TS
>    granularity 1.25Gbps/2.5Gbps."
> [DC] it should be generic enough to cover both OSPF and IS-IS
> 
> -Routing occurrence #7
>  "The TS granularity information is needed in the routing protocol as
>    the ingress node (A in the previous example) needs to know"
> [DC] it should be generic enough to cover both OSPF and IS-IS
> 
> -Routing occurrences #8 and #9
>    "In conclusion both routing and signaling needs to be extended to
>    appropriately represent the TS granularity/PT information.  Routing
>    needs to represent a link's TS granularity and PT capabilities as
>    well as the supported multiplexing hierarchy"
> [DC] it should be generic enough to cover both OSPF and IS-IS
> 
> -Routing occurrence #10
>   " From a routing perspective, [RFC4203] allows advertising [RFC4328]
>    interfaces (single TS type) without the capability of providing
>    precise information about bandwidth specific allocation."
> [DC] We could change this into:
>      " From an OSPF perspective, [RFC4203] allows advertising [RFC4328]
>    interfaces (single TS type) without the capability of providing
>    precise information about bandwidth specific allocation. In the case of
>   IS-IS no extension is defined for [RFC4328].
> 

see above for an alternate proposal.

> - Routing occurrence #11
>    "With respect to the routing, please note that in case of multi stage
>    multiplexing hierarchy (e.g.  ODU1->ODU2->ODU3), not only the ODUk/
>    OTUk bandwidth (ODU3) and service layer bandwidth (ODU1) are needed,
>    but also the intermediate one (ODU2).  This is a typical case of
>    spatial allocation problem."
> [DC] it should be generic enough to cover both OSPF and IS-IS

should be "With respect to routing," (drop the)
> 
> - OSPF occurrence #3
>   "In conclusion, the OSPF-TE extensions defined in [RFC4203] require a
>    different ISCD per signal type in order to advertise each supported
>    container."
> [DC] We could change this into:
>   "In conclusion, the OSPF-TE extensions defined in [RFC4203] require a
>    different ISCD per signal type in order to advertise each supported
>    container, while in the case of IS-IS... (suggestions welcome).
> 

see above.

> - OSPF occurrence #4
>   "Per [RFC2328], OSPF messages are directly encapsulated in IP
>    datagrams and depend on IP fragmentation when transmitting packets
>    larger than the network MTU."
> - OSPF occurrences #5 and #6
>   "[RFC2328] recommends that "IP
>    fragmentation should be avoided whenever possible."  This
>    recommendation further constraints solutions as OSPF does not support
>    any generic mechanism to fragment OSPF LSAs."
> [DC] I only could find an expired draft regarding IS-IS encapsulation in IP datagrams
> 

Per [RFC2328] should start a new paragraph.

You could add. "Even when used in IP environments IS-IS [RFC1195], does
not support message sizes larger than a link's maximum frame size."

I think that's it.

Lou

> BR
> Daniele
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
>> Sent: lunedì 19 agosto 2013 22:35
>> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; Daniele Ceccarelli; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-
>> model@tools.ietf.org
>> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model
>>
>> Adrian,
>>
>> I suspect that we've been hit by some post-IETF vacationing.
>>
>> Daniele, Authors,
>>
>> Any additional thoughts on this one remaining open issue?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lou
>>
>> On 8/18/2013 2:03 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>>> At the end of the intro we added the following sentence:
>>>>> "  As far as it concerns routing, analogous considerations apply to IS-IS
>>>>>   [RFC5307] but in the following only a gap analysis with respect to
>>>>> OSPF-TE
>>> is
>>>>> provided."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that the analysis for 5307 is pretty similar to 4203, I think
>>>> you should take a pass at including it as well.  I'm happy to
>>>> review/contribute as needed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Lou (chair & doc shepherd)
>>>
>>> Was there any further progress on this?
>>>
>>> I see that the current revision addresses all other points. The note
>>> added to excuse mentioning IS-IS is a bit skinny, and I would not like
>>> to bet money on you having actually done the analysis to support
>>> adding it :-)
>>>
>>> It may be the case that only a small proportion of CCAMP is interested
>>> in IS-IS, and it may be the case that the intersection of those people
>>> with those interested in OTN is vanishingly small. If that is the case
>>> (I guess Lou can find out) we should excuse IS-IS in a more open and
>>> blatant way while soliciting and offering to help work on IS-IS for OTN.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
>