Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 21 January 2015 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC421A0041 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:55:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dxWu78hXVQp7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA3C11A0026 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0LLtKcw028631; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:55:20 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (089144198240.atnat0007.highway.a1.net [89.144.198.240]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t0LLtHEX028620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:55:19 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Giovanni Martinelli \(giomarti\)'" <giomarti@cisco.com>
References: <00dd01d026c8$c3bd9280$4b38b780$@olddog.co.uk> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C71AC5@dfweml706-chm> <02f401d035bc$efc05ef0$cf411cd0$@olddog.co.uk> <4B704AAD-ED2D-4688-9283-F2ACBFB27554@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B704AAD-ED2D-4688-9283-F2ACBFB27554@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:55:16 -0000
Message-ID: <033301d035c4$f2717b90$d75472b0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGuBc8fgeeljdJ0ZqOUd7m3it/ADQJ3wIujAyk0V7MB8PVN4ZzS7emQ
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21272.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--22.979-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--22.979-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: byfwvk+IcRmwzFuyya2WsEKcYi5Qw/RVlnrMq7Sriu3E3grQNcpLWNoz beODnXpl5HnfFFKR5dwGRoT1tahRf7SHbPtwt+RfSDkh6bW+bccmln3AceenB9p1biJhIyNRXa2 +zE1cP+VSXntx713VaDpBc5uTSHW+Y+VfsshMgK30hv/rD7WVZA/LU+XiHL1tD4y1CC6G7fjUdt HM7EKWR/prHKq2ATP4CjTy2qbL4Du5HsA8a/n6iKMVgdN9w+TCj/xLIaDSshEjJTYshMkID9Uwy rj5CivytOixgOjnHf1nklUsX189YkLMcWGLKmhWaK+MsTwM+1me7AJyCqdN8FUSdDbvVFxS0TD6 UetkoeX1x6IKVdulMwA1CHMkDy6fYqmUd3tOErWeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCpvI8UZOf47gYq/Q JOAA07Y2j49Ftap9EkGUtrowrXLg=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/e-SdSjwzJ54Yi9sPbjXOLNiFjrA>
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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, 21 Jan 2015 21:55:35 -0000

Hi,

Well, you seem to have a half-way house.

You have specified the existence of a thing, but not how to read it.

If you wanted to make a statement that this object will only be used when it is
known that all systems in a network come from the same vendor and/or have the
same understanding of the encoding, that might be OK (although how you would
ascertain this might also need to be described).

Or you could entirely remove the vendor-specific option.

Or you could put in an OUI / enterprise number followed by transparent bytes.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) [mailto:giomarti@cisco.com]
> Sent: 21 January 2015 21:22
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: Leeyoung; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org;
> ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
> 
> Specifically to the Interface class here below.
> 
> In the initial draft merged to this one there was the usage of OUI however (I
> guess after chatting with Lou) we decided to remove any encoding when the
> Interface class is not standard.
> In term of semantic the protcol does not need to decode the Interface class
since
> it only assess the interface compatibility if two interfaces has a class value
that
> match two interfaces cann be connected.
> 
> Having saying that I don't have strong opinion in adding the OUI or leaving
room
> for maybe future public interfaces database. For sure there's a need to leave
> room for specific compatibility assesment since there optical multivendor
> compatibility has been already demonstrated.
> 
> hope this help .
> 
> Cheers
> G
> 
> 
> On 21 Jan 2015, at 21:57, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >>>
> >>> Section 4.1
> >>> How do I interpret a Vendor-Specific Application Code? Is there an OUI
> >>> I'm missing?
> >>
> >> [YOUNG] Not sure if I understood this question. What is "OUI"?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizationally_unique_identifier
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-
> numbers.xhtml#ieee-802
> > -numbers-2
> >
> > Or perhaps an Enterprise Number
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/enterprise-numbers
> >
> > The question is:
> >
> > You have sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4 to tell me how to interpret the
Optical
> > Interface Class field when it contains an ITU-T Application Mapping.
> > When I received s=0 and OI=1 it means that the Optical Interface Class
contains
> > a "Vendor Specific Optical Interface Class".
> > How do I interpret that Optical Interface Class?
> > Which vendor does it apply to?
> > Is there some information elsewhere that gives me a clue as to which vendor
> has
> > encoded the information?
> > Or is the information supposed to be encoded in the Optical Interface Class,
> > perhaps as the first 48 bits?
> > Or am I supposed to know by context?