IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net> Mon, 14 July 2014 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ggrammel@juniper.net>
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 186111A0031 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_AVOID=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 SPG386cHJjqe for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1lp0142.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 041B51A0016 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.140) by BN1PR05MB044.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.202.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.980.8; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:14:57 +0000
Received: from BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.149]) by BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.6.78]) with mapi id 15.00.0980.000; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:14:57 +0000
From: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>
To: "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" <ggalimbe@cisco.com>, "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de" <Manuel.Paul@telekom.de>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib
Thread-Index: Ac+XAT5ztVyFVTboTtq7YqBZHj6KHgEc6cpwADT8aQAA0Vs4MA==
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:14:56 +0000
Message-ID: <ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddc@BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3@HE101454.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <CFE4088C.63D37%ggalimbe@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFE4088C.63D37%ggalimbe@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.11]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 02723F29C4
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(377454003)(199002)(164054003)(83072002)(81542001)(81342001)(15975445006)(74316001)(50986999)(76482001)(86362001)(19580395003)(17760045003)(46102001)(33646001)(107886001)(16236675004)(19617315012)(74662001)(74502001)(21056001)(92566001)(19580405001)(66066001)(31966008)(83322001)(76576001)(2201001)(64706001)(20776003)(85852003)(80022001)(54356999)(19300405004)(99936001)(76176999)(19273905006)(77096002)(87936001)(95666004)(79102001)(77982001)(85306003)(4396001)(99286002)(101416001)(15202345003)(19627595001)(107046002)(2656002)(19625215002)(105586002)(99396002)(106356001)(108616002)(24736002)(16866105001)(16866085005); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB044; H:BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_ddae2fd400864eb392d96b784e573ddcBN1PR05MB041namprd05pro_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/f77CkJQirL985iPyc0TAfh6Hl-k
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:15:11 -0000

Manuel,

Overall it is difficult for the authors to grasp in what respect a G.698.2 interface would differ from an optical interface in terms of supervision and configuration capabilities. Also link management is already around since a while for a set of technologies. Application codes defined in G.698.2 are link characteristics which should be discovered however there seem still to be some reluctance the way we looked at it. It would be great if we could get substantial feedback on the list on how to supervise a G.698.2 interface should be supervised and monitored.

Gert

From: Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe) [mailto:ggalimbe@cisco.com]
Sent: 10 July 2014 09:11
To: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de; Gert Grammel; ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

Hi Manuel,

I absolutely agree.  Also retrieving the TX and RX (measured) power is fundamental for trouble shooting.

Best Regards,

Gabriele
[http://www.cisco.com/swa/i/logo.gif]


Gabriele Galimberti
Technical Leader
Cisco Photonics Srl

Via Philips, 12
20900 - Monza (MI)
Italy
www.cisco.com/global/IT/<http://www.cisco.com/global/IT/>

ggalimbe@cisco.com<mailto:ggalimbe@cisco.com>
Phone :+39 039 2091462
Mobile :+39 335 7481947
Fax :+39 039 2092049












From: "Manuel.Paul@telekom.de<mailto:Manuel.Paul@telekom.de>" <Manuel.Paul@telekom.de<mailto:Manuel.Paul@telekom.de>>
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 3:01 PM
To: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net<mailto:ggrammel@juniper.net>>, "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

Hello CCAMPers,

I worked through the last ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with these both documents.
The values in the drafts are corresponding to ITU-T G.698.2.
Why should it not be possible to set power and wavelength in the Black Link case?  Every transponder could be configured  and maintained in the same manner.
Thanks,
Manuel

From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM
To: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>)
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

The authors of  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib/
Put new versions out and would encourage discussion on the list. We'd like to collect input before the meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We also work in parallel on a draft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings.

As a reminder: the drafts define parameters to enable management and Link Management of G.698.2 compliant interfaces.
-------------------------------------
Gert Grammel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email