Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 28 January 2014 22:35 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.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 2A55D1A0476 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:35:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 ZsJpADFmGr3G for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy14-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy14-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.51.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D9C2E1A0467 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:35:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 17379 invoked by uid 0); 28 Jan 2014 22:35:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy14.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2014 22:35:32 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=556pAvIwiUQq6eqoZGXhMmo/7pU6+MIA2K8imrREvEk=; b=Yy2nDE9/EfDdfbO+wNViNIBP5vVRxdZ9TA1V0FTkMvzvoo0oFHkaqfj0GMwsjJ8BWbCUmIKjFbQgLaAmr2jQbexJ/ShR/U1CV8r6WSwvfn2Lq7e9BgThMajBMb96yHNj;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:54756 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1W8HFj-0000fY-Qm; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:35:31 -0700
Message-ID: <52E830AE.60002@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:35:26 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode@tools.ietf.org>
References: <524AF9A9.3040006@labn.net> <5266E138.8080605@labn.net> <526FFE06.20207@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291E3AF2@dfweml511-mbs.china.huawei.com> <52DD7EC4.9050801@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB4575@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729BB4575@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
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: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 22:35:38 -0000
Young, It looks like you missed my in line comments. They still need to be addressed. Thanks, Lou On 1/27/2014 8:04 PM, Leeyoung wrote: > Hi Lou, > > All idinits have been corrected. > > Here's the working document (v.24). Let me know if this is ready for publication. > > Regards, > Young > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 1:54 PM > To: Leeyoung; CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode@tools.ietf.org > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode > > Young, (all), > > There are few minor items in this document. > > idnits says: > (see > http://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-23.txt) > == Line 497 has weird spacing: '...(number of r...' > == Missing Reference: 'RWA-INFO' is mentioned on line 154, but not defined > == Unused Reference: 'RFC2578' is defined on line 1248, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > > On 11/12/2013 9:06 PM, Leeyoung wrote: >> Hi Lou, >> >> Please see inline for my responses to your comments. Let me know if there are still further issues. >> >> Thanks. >> Young >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 1:27 PM >> To: CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - >> draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode >> >> Authors, >> I have some comments on this document. Many are strictly editorial. Note that I'm the document shepherd, see RFC 4858 for more information. >> >> - Please address my general comments on the WSON document set >> >> YOUNG>> Done. See Terminology Section changed as follows: >> >> Refer to [RFC6163] for CWDM, DWDM, RWA, WDM. >> Refer to Section 5 of [Gen-Encode] for the terminology of Resources, Resources Blocks, and Resource Pool. >> > > you now have two section 1s. Perhaps the second should be 1.1? > > ... > >> - Section 3.1 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >> | Connectivity | >> Why is connectivity a byte here, but only a bit in section 2.1? >> Either it should be a bit here to, or section 2.1 should be a byte. >> Note, that this can be fixed in a compatible way by defining it here >> as: >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >> | Reserved |C| >> >> YOUNG>> Your suggested encoding accepted. >> > > I expected that the "C" bit would end up in the same bit location all things being equal. The new text has the reserved field of 7 bits, the corresponding 'action' field is 8 bit's so I think you're one bit too > short. Either way, you should give the number of bits that are in each > reserved field to make this unambiguous. Perhaps? > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Reserved(8bits)|C| Reserved (23 bits) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> - Section 4. >> The definitions of sub-sub-TLVs are a bit underspecified. Some >> specific questions to address: >> >> - Are there any sub-sub-TLV ordering requirements? >> >> YOUNG>> No. >> > > Where is this stated? Now that they are list as fields this is even less self evident. > >> - How are multiple sub-sub-TLVs of the same type to be handled? >> >> YOUNG>> I don't see why there are multiple sub-sub-TLVs of the same >> type. In case where there are multiple sub-sub-TLVs of the same type, >> there would be no error as these information are not order-sensitive. >> Is this what you have in mind? >> > > Again, just looking for an explicit statement of processing requirements. > >> - What is the sub-sub-TLV header (TL format)? >> >> YOUNG>> Added TLV format > > It looks like only the Optical Interface Class List field has a type and length field (neither of which are defined). What about the other 3? > (Acceptable Client Signal Type, Input Bit Rate List, Processing Capabilities List) > > Also, note that you reference the "Processing Capabilities List" but don't define it. > > 4.6. is titled "Processing Capability List Field", 4.6.1 is titled "Processing Capabilities Field" which defines the "processing capability field". Clearly you need to pick just one. > >> >> - Are there any alignment requirements? >> >> YOUNG>> Not sure what this is. > > It's part of a typical TLV definition. > >> >> - What happens when a sub-sub-TLV is larger than 256 bytes? >> (There are already systems that advertise 192 wavelengths on a >> fiber and an application code takes 8 bytes, right? But >> of course this presents a problem when carried within an RSVP >> object too.) >> >> If you find you need more specifics, we can discuss / I can propose >> new text. Feel free to discuss the details on or off list (your >> choice.) >> >> >> YOUNG>> Please see the other email response to this comment. >> > [copied] >> YOUNG>> For the last dash item, "what happens when sub-sub-TLV is > larger than 256 bytes", I guess you meant that the RB Info Field (in which to contain sub-sub-TLVs) can exceed 256 bytes as opposed to individual sub-sub-TLVs in the RB Info Field? > > It was a general question, as the topic has showed up as a general in in ccamp. I'd expect it to be addressed as part of the TLV definition. > >> >> YOUNG>> As for the resolution for this case, should this be addressed > in the respective routing and signaling drafts? > > If it's likely to happen, then I think you need to say something about it. If it should never happen, e.g., due to fixed sizes, then it can be ignored. > >> YOUNG>> I am not familiar the method to resolve this kind of issues > --- can you suggest some references or relevant text? I think this issue would arise both routing and signaling. > > Agreed. Truncation and semantic fragmentation show up in a bunch of places. The real question is, is how worried do we need to be about this case? > > > ... > >> >> - Section 3.4, 4.1 >> - Bits I & E are defined here, but I & O are used in parallel ways in >> Section 3.2. For consistency it should be I & O everywhere (to >> match input and output). >> >> YOUNG>> Corrected to I & O. >> > > You still have one case of an E-bit (rather than O-bit) in Section 4.3. > > ... > I think this covers all open points on this one. > > Lou >
- [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-info, … Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - rwa-in… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Leeyoung
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
- Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-… Lou Berger