Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 drafts way forward

Dieter,

We assume you are referring to http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-09.txt and invite you to review the introduction part. More 'exotic' use cases like control loops would require a read and a write operation for power levels. However in particular the write operation was considered unsuitable by the optical experts commenting in the past. We would certainly appreciate if you could point us to ITU-T Recommendations supporting such a use case and in particular to an information model supporting write operations of power levels.

BR

Rüdiger

Von: Dieter Beller [mailto:Dieter.Beller@alcatel-lucent.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. März 2015 22:48
An: Kunze, Rüdiger; daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com; ccamp@ietf.org
Cc: paul.doolan@coriant.com
Betreff: Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 drafts way forward

Hi all,

here are my 2 cents:

The exchange of power values between adjacent NEs does IMHO only make sense, if there is a use case that justifies this and an
application/procedure that needs these values as input parameters.

Application codes as defined in G.698.2 do currently define Tx and Rx power value ranges at reference points Ss and Rs, respectively.

A power level control loop that adjusts power levels such that the input/output power range at the reference point stays within
the given range could be an example of a use case/application that may require the exchange of the current input/output values.

The draft does not provide a reasonable use case nor does it describe an application/procedure that makes use of these values. So,
there is a gap which IMHO needs to be filled before we can decide whether to keep the exchange of power level values or whether
they should be removed.

Thanks,
Dieter
On 26.03.2015 21:37, RKunze@telekom.de<mailto:RKunze@telekom.de> wrote:
Hi Daniele,

we agree to remove the transmit power settings from LMP and from the SNMP MIB documents. Regarding the power reading, we believe that this is a needed parameter to verify  the maximum channel power difference as specified in  G. 692 (Table 7): "This recommendation specifies the possibility of loss between reference points S and Rm" as per figure 1/G.692.
We will update and re-submit the document right after this IETF meeting. With this latest update we believe to address all the concerns of the working group and if there are no further objections we can proceed with acceptance as WG documents.

BR

The authors of the drafts

Gabriele, Gert and Ruediger

Von: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Daniele Ceccarelli
Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2015 20:44
An: CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>)
Betreff: [CCAMP] G.698.2 drafts way forward

Dear authors of G.698.2 draft,

This is a follow up of my comment to your presentations in CCAMP. I checked the minutes of the IETF91 meeting (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/minutes?item=minutes-91-ccamp.html) and, assuming the power was removed from the list of managed parameters, the WG showed good interest in working on the topic.

I see the power was not removed from the drafts and I was wondering what are you plans. Are you willing to keep it in it or available to get rid of it?

BR
Daniele

_______________________________________________

CCAMP mailing list

CCAMP@ietf.org<mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp