Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709 open issues)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

I'm empathetic with the addition, but suspect it's best not to put the
first 10 words in the draft...

Lou

On 5/21/2013 8:45 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> It should be blindingly obvious to the informed reader that in the context of [G709-2012], the values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS granularity of 2.5Gps, and the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a TS granularity of 1.25Gps.
> 
> Yours Irrespectively,
> 
> John
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:38 PM
>> To: John E Drake
>> Cc: Fatai Zhang; [e-mail];
>> CCAMP; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709
>> open issues)
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Great. It seems we agree that it shouldn't have been necessary to
>> discuss this point so many times, and that the additional text doesn't
>> change the field definition. It is informative narrative after all.
>>
>> Now that said, can you live with the revised "overly precise" text so
>> that we can move forward (and ensure we're not back here again)?
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> On May 21, 2013 4:23:37 PM John E Drake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Lou,
>>>
>>> The question that has always been is whether signaling needed to
>>> include an explicit TSG filed and the answer has always been no
>>> because it can be derived from other fields.  The text I proposed
>>> makes that derivation explicit and unambiguous.  The additional text
>>> you are proposing adds neither clarity nor information.
>>>
>>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:37 AM
>>>> To: John E Drake
>>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang;
>>>> [e-mail];
>>>> CCAMP; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing
>>>> G.709 open issues) John, Really?  You're joking right?
>>>> As I said to Fatai:
>>>>    My feeling is that there have been too many "surprises" on the
>> 709
>>>>    documents in areas that I thought were ... resolved by past
>>>>    discussions.  At this point, as co-chair and Document shepherd,
>> I
>>>>    want to ensure that any open point on the documents are
>>>>    unambiguously closed and that past discussions (i.e., points of
>>>>    consensus) are 100% captured, so that we can smoothly move
>> through
>>>>    the planned second LC and publication request.
>>>> The particular point of the ambiguity/implicit nature of
>> determining
>>>> TSG from length has been brought up at least three times.  (Note,
>> by
>>>> others in the WG -- this is not my concern.) Each time the
>> consensus
>>>> from the discussion is to leave as is, but no or only minimal
>>>> changes were made to the document.  I opened the trac ticket to
>>>> ensure that the consensus was documented in the draft and that we
>>>> don't have to yet again revisit this topic -- which *is* my
>> concern.
>>>> So, the revised text addresses your concern of not needing to
>>>> redefine the field for new 709 rate or TSGs, and it is sufficiently
>>>> precise so that non should misinterpret the current "implicit"
>>>> specification of TSG.
>>>> Can we/you accept the revised "overly precise" text and move
>> forward?
>>>> Lou
>>>> On 5/20/2013 10:30 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>>>>> What is behind your preoccupation with enumerating all possible
>>>> combinations of length & TSG?  Do you have trouble with arithmetic?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 20, 2013, at 1:42 PM, "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/20/2013 3:18 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>>>>>>> I think that's a big mistake(tm).  If a new rate or TSG is
>>>>>>> introduced the RFC would need to be updated even though the
>>>> encoding
>>>>>>> does not require it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well that's easily addressed, via something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bits of the Bit Map
>>>>>> field, i.e., the number of TS in the HO ODUk link.  The TS
>>>>>> granularity, 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps, may be derived by dividing the
>>>>>> HO ODUk link's rate by the value of the Length field.  In the
>>>>>> context of [G709-2012], the values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS
>>>>>> granularity of 2.5Gps, and the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a
>>>>>> TS granularity of
>>>> 1.25Gps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 20, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>> There's still some ambiguity here.  How about:
>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2013 9:15 AM, John E Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bits of the Bit Map
>>>>>>>>> field, i.e., the number of TS in the HO ODUk link.  The TS
>>>>>>>>> granularity, 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps, may be derived by dividing
>>>>>>>>> the HO ODUk link's rate by the value of the Length field.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Replace:
>>>>>>>>> For example, for an HO ODU2
>>>>>>>>> link, whose link rate is 10Gbps, the value of the Length
>> field
>>>>>>>>> will be either 4 or 8 and the TS granularity will be either
>>>>>>>>> 2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps, respectively.
>>>>>>>> With:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  The values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS granularity of 2.5Gps,
>>>>>>>> while the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a TS granularity of
>> 1.25Gps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Irrespectively Yours,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: John E Drake
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang;
>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail];
>>>>>>>>>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-
>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was:
>>>> Closing
>>>>>>>>>> G.709 open issues)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>>   I guess you haven't been paying attention!  The rewrite
>>>>>>>>>> originated from Daniele, was tweaked by me and then fixed by
>>>> Fatai.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have an alternate proposal to address issue#48?
>>>>>>>>>> Issue #48="In signaling document section 6: Clarify related
>>>>>>>>>> text [i.e., the OLD text] to unambiguously identify the
>>>>>>>>>> relationship between label length and TSG."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2013 1:15 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Lou,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the original text is fine and your attempted
>>>>>>>>>>> re-write
>>>>>>>>>> completely mangled its meaning.  The label is a bit vector
>>>>>>>>>> whose length is equal to the ODUk rate / TSG.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Irrespectively Yours,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Lou Berger
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:17 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Fatai Zhang
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail];
>>>> CCAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft- [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Closing
>>>>>>>>>>>> G.709 open issues)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors/WG,
>>>>>>>>>>>>   From the mail on the list it seems to me that we've
>>>>>>>>>>>> reached
>>>>>>>>>> closure
>>>>>>>>>>>> on Issue #48: "Document no explicit indication of TSG in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>> label"
>>>>>>>>>>>> (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/ticket/48).  I'd
>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> to confirm my reading.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I read the list, this issue will be resolved by making
>>>>>>>>>>>> the following change to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-
>> g709v3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OLD
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Length field in the label format MAY be used to indicate
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>> TS
>>>>>>>>>>>> type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps or
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.5Gbps) since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID
>>>>>>>>>>>> RSVP_HOP Object. In some cases when there is no Link
>>>> Management
>>>>>>>>>>>> Protocol (LMP) or routing to make the two end points of
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> link to know the TSG, the TSG information used by another
>>>>>>>>>>>> end can be deduced from the label format. For example, for
>>>>>>>>>>>> HO ODU2 link, the value of the length filed will be 4 or
>> 8,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which indicates the TS granularity is 2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps,
>>>> respectively.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NEW
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that the TS granularity of an HO ODUk can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> inferred from the length of the label. The values of 4 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> 16 indicate a TS granularity of 2.5Gps, while the values
>> 2,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 8, 32 and 80 indicate a
>>>>>>>>>> TS
>>>>>>>>>>>> granularity of 1.25Gps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please speak up if you disagree with this resolution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2013 9:41 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For point 1), "1" should be dropped and "7" should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected to
>>>>>>>>>>>> "8" in your proposed text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>