IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-03

Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Wed, 07 November 2018 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
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 69F4E129619 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:50:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 DPaknB9t0qmg for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6399812D4E8 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 01:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 302C8BF36979A; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 09:49:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([10.201.109.59]) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com ([10.201.108.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 09:49:58 +0000
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-03
Thread-Index: AQHUdlbmZ8kk5CXTdUqNZA3gTnkmc6VED97w
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 09:49:57 +0000
Message-ID: <91E3A1BD737FDF4FA14118387FF6766B1591323C@lhreml504-mbs>
References: <863DE179-8B0D-4692-9EE8-4404D668C338@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <863DE179-8B0D-4692-9EE8-4404D668C338@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.126.175.186]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_91E3A1BD737FDF4FA14118387FF6766B1591323Clhreml504mbs_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/g6_eVcxUZdxAfK_CgF35KYY8Ma4>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-03
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 07 Nov 2018 09:50:05 -0000

Hi Gert,

Regarding your first question, our intention is not to define what a “domain” is but to re-use existing definitions such as the one in RFC5151.

What about adding some text like “In the context of this document, a domain would be the set of network elements under the control of a single PNC”?

Would this address your concern?

Regarding your second question, the domain structure of the customer domain is outside the scope of the document. We can either change “customer domain” with “customer domain(s)” or, given the comment above, “customer network”

What do you think/prefer?

Italo

From: Gert Grammel [mailto:ggrammel@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 12:01 PM
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-03

As a follow up of  the WG discussion today:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-03
defines “Domain” in accordance to RFC5151 with:

   Domain: defined as a collection of network elements within a common

   realm of address space or path computation responsibility [RFC5151<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5151>]

Q: Within this definition, what is the meaning of “address space” or “path computation responsibility”? My current interpretations are
-          “address space” means label space (i.e. timeslots, wavelength, VLAN)
-          Path-computation-responsibility: means PNC

Q: Figure 1 shows “customer domain” on different locations, but those are not numbered. Does the figure assumes a single “customer domain” or is it supposed to show different customer domains (which I assume to be the case)?

Can you clarify?

Thanks

Gert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email