Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

Hi, Lou, 

   I support your proposal. 

  Just a thought: given the massive support of Option 2 from WG,  maybe we can reconcile by moving the WG draft forward using either Option 1/3, while writing a short draft to document the update needed to match the to-be-updated G.874.1? So that once it is updated, we can move the draft quickly. 

Regards,
Xian

________________________________________
发件人: CCAMP [ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Lou Berger [lberger@labn.net]
发送时间: 2015年1月29日 23:59
收件人: Leeyoung; adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Varma, Eve L (Eve)'; db3546@att.com; 'Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)'; ggrammel@juniper.net; giomarti@cisco.com
抄送: paul.doolan@coriant.com; ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org
主题: Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

I thought it would be good to let things settle a bit before responding
as Shepherd.

So option 1 (No definition of proprietary semantics and conflicts are
handled outside of the control plane, i.e., belong to operator) was the
intent of the WG at the time of publication request.  This approach was
also aligned with the then, and actually current, state of the ITU-T
data plane (and management info) as discussed in our joint meeting. I
believe option 3 (dropping the vendor specific option) isn't in conflict
with this.

There now seems to be support for changing the document to align it
with, what I understand is, a planned update to G.874.1.  This of course
implies that such a change would result in this document being blocked
until that update is published in 6 months or so, and assumes no
substantive change its contents.

Again with Shepherd hat on, I recommend avoiding the additional delay
and not tie this document to the planned G.874.1 update at this time,
i.e., by following option 1 (or even 3).  This allows for a future
bis/update that is align with the expected update to G.874.1 once it is
published.

Comments, objections, support?  (AD, authors, chairs, wg, ...)

Lou

On 01/29/2015 09:51 AM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems like the world is against Option 1. No big deal, please provide relevant text to support Option 2.
>
> Young
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:24 AM
> To: Leeyoung; 'Varma, Eve L (Eve)'; db3546@att.com; 'Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)'; ggrammel@juniper.net; giomarti@cisco.com
> Cc: paul.doolan@coriant.com; ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
>
> Hi again,
>
>> There is always a priori knowledge in optical network domain as to who
>> are you interfacing with. So you know which vendor you are interfacing.
>> If you do not know, then you are in trouble.
>
> Hmmm. It is exactly type of trouble we are trying to detect and protect against.
>
> I refute your statement of a priori knowledge. I think there is a priori intention, but not knowledge. Unless you have very good eyesight or someone at the other end of the fiber when you give it a tug, you don't know. And even then. Fibering errors happen from time to time. Consider, in particular a patch panel.
>
>> Now, what is the purpose of standard FECs and modulations in the AI? Given
>> several choices each vendor may support in its device, the path computation
>> would find a matched types for FEC and modulation for a given optical path.
>> This is what is intended when optical signal processing constraints were
>> proposed as part of path computation constraints in optical networks.
>
>
> The case you are making here is for no standard control plane!
> What is the point of standardising if there is never any interworking?
> But actually, we know about interworking at the physical layer, and (more important) we know about a single, end-to-end control plane that spans multiple vendor devices. It all exists.
>
> Of course, we can fall back into the old-style vendor islands, and many like to do so. But it is not a compulsory deployment model.
>
>> There is very little chance for vendor specific FECs and Modulations will match
>> even if they are identified with the OUI code.
>
> You have it the wrong way round!
> The OUI is largely to protect against expectations of interworking when none can exist.
> It might (much less frequently) be used to describe the way that vendorA and vendorB pick FECs and modulations in order to achieve interworking.
>
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp