[CCAMP] Change 2: Use of connectivity matrix to describe pools accessibility (was Re: Moving the WSON discussion forward)

["PELOSO, PIERRE (PIERRE)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg and CCAMPer's,

As in the preceding mail which summarized the 3 main changes proposed by draft-peloso-ccamp-wson-ospf-oeo, become too big to be easily read through,
I've been splitting the 3 points in 3 different threads, this one deals with change 2:  
Use of the connectivity matrix defined inside the node entity in order to describe connectivity constraints between node-external links and the resource pools.
MOTIVATION: a/ to gather static information inside node entity (for OSPF-TE inside a LSA never flooded upon LSP updates). b/ to limit the number of connectivity representations introduced by current extensions (draft-ietf-rwa-info proposes similar TLVs in different LSAs)

Best Regards,

Pierre

[SNIP] 

>>>       2. Use of the connectivity matrix defined inside the node 
>>> entity in order to describe connectivity constraints between 
>>> node-external links and the resource pools.
>>> MOTIVATION: a/ to gather static information inside node entity (for 
>>> OSPF-TE inside a LSA never flooded upon LSP updates). b/ to limit 
>>> the number of connectivity representations introduced by current 
>>> extensions (draft-ietf-rwa-info proposes similar TLVs in different LSAs).
>>>
>> -->  This change mixes information from "general constraints" with 
>> --> "wson
>> specific constraints" and hence goes against the decision made by the 
>> CCAMP WG at the March 2009 San Francisco IETF. This proposed change 
>> does not result in any space savings and results in an undesirable 
>> mixing of separate concepts.  All current WSON drafts include 
>> separation of relatively "static" from more "dynamic" information, 
>> hence this change is unnecessary.
> My co-authors and myself are aware of your interpretation of this 
> solution as being a mixing of generic and wson specific extensions.
> Actually we are not sharing this interpretation, we consider this 
> solution as complying with the decision you're refering too.
> The resulting connectivity matrix does not contains any FEC, 
> wavelength, modulation format information.
> This kind of information is still separated in different elements.
> Hence what you're interpreting as a mixing of wson and generic 
> extensions is nothing but the use in a generic element of unnumbered IDs.
> By nature, all of these unnumbered IDs being defined in different 
> LSAs, as was already planned current WG drafts.
> Considering that depending on the type of LSA which define these IDs, 
> the WG decision is betrayed or not is a position I let you advocate.
--> But there is nothing to be gained from these changes spacewise. As
someone who has been working on the drafts since 2007 we originally separated the information, then combined the information, then separated the information based on the WG decision. Since this change doesn't fix anything, at this point we should leave it as it is.

-->Pierre
What is to be gained is a little bit of space as all the information is concentrated in one entity, which enhances the overall compactness, but nothing big, I conceed.
Regarding the simplification of the extensions, this is not negligible discarding a sub-TLV that is redundant with another one, and hence enhances the coherence of the work.
And a document being at the stage of a WG document was not frozen in my understanding of it.