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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 22 May 2013 17:45 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 58E7811E8109 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.452
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.452 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.187, 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 HnKrZJhgCOXg for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy14-pub.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy14-pub.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.51.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E9A121F905B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20092 invoked by uid 0); 22 May 2013 17:28:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy14.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 22 May 2013 17:28:41 -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=hDlk7eqQ1QpAzO6C2cyJxchZnmk8iT2Nn5utcR+9uOw=; b=AZkpPeTj/h4lFknpsPdlbodUm1iie42Z9xwheubaBdJ/B+HHR/p1kqtJ+qBjiM9YlaHyI+iM50XGApVsPnkcQVkkFseEuQeZecZfJSUwIghzO4B5AcSgnJyOadN+Gyd5;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:33879 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UfCq9-00069I-8j; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:28:41 -0600
Message-ID: <519D0049.80709@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:28:41 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
References: <518A82D9.7080508@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B000@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <518BAB17.9090807@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C67D9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <518BDAFF.40706@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B39A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <519657FE.5030602@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D5009B0@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <519693DF.6000003@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D504EAD@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>, <519A6EC1.4080205@labn.net> <9574E62A-6A68-4290-A103-8A0A750E2004@juniper.net>, <519A8A7D.5020002@labn.net> <ABBBA19E-EDF3-4B68-AC13-64F1C7E946EE@juniper.net> <519B6A75.5040803@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D508BCA@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <13ec9ac042d.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D50937C@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D50937C@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709 open issues)
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, 22 May 2013 17:45:23 -0000

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:lberger@labn.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:38 PM
>> To: John E Drake
>> Cc: Fatai Zhang; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org;
>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>> 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 <jdrake@juniper.net> 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:lberger@labn.net]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:37 AM
>>>> To: John E Drake
>>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang;
>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org;
>>>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>>>> 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" <lberger@labn.net>
>> 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" <lberger@labn.net>
>> 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:lberger@labn.net]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: John E Drake
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang;
>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org;
>>>>>>>>>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-
>> g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>> 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: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org]
>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Lou Berger
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:17 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Fatai Zhang
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org;
>>>> CCAMP;
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft- ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>