Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt

[[e-mail]]

Rajan,

Can you give us a detailed example about the use of "Minimum LSP 
bandwidth"?
Currently, I can not feel the importance of this information.

I like Ramon's answer: "It may be short-sighted to discard the option", so 
please go on.



Thanks
Qilei






Rajan Rao <[e-mail]> 
·¢¼þÈË:  "CCAMP" <[e-mail]>
2015-03-04 09:11

ÊÕ¼þÈË
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "'Zhangxian (Xian)'" 
<[e-mail]>, 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]>, 'Ramon Casellas' 
<[e-mail]>, 
³­ËÍ
Iftekhar Hussain <[e-mail]>
Ö÷Ìâ
Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt






Adrian,
 
Looks like there is different interpretation of RFC 4202 text.  RFC 4202 
text in sections 2.4.2 & 2.4.3  says 
¡°¡­..an LSP at priority
  p could reserve any bandwidth between the Minimum LSP Bandwidth and
   the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at priority p, provided that the bandwidth¡­
..¡±
 
Having only the Maximum LSP bandwidth field priority based & not the 
Minimum LSP bandwidth field doesn¡¯t seem right.  It is a simplification 
for sure.  What is the correct interpretation of above text?  Will be good 
to know. 
 
Thx
Rajan
 
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:45 AM
To: 'Zhangxian (Xian)'; Rajan Rao; 'CCAMP'; 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Iftekhar Hussain
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi,
 
[Speaking as a regular contributor which, praise be, I will in just three 
weeks' time. Not that I'm counting...]
 
There is some up-levelling to be done here.
 
Rajan seems to be proposing a new concept that would allow us to advertise 
not just the bandwidth available at each priority (per 4202) but also to 
vary the constraints on allocation per priority. This would allow us to 
say that priority x LSPs can only use chunks of bandwidth between sizes a 
and b, while priority y LSPs can only chunks of bandwidth between sizes c 
and d.
 
I have three questions:
- Is this a valid thing to want to do in any technology?
- Is it something we want to do in Flexigrid?
- Is it something that should be generalised?
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zhangxian (Xian)
Sent: 03 March 2015 07:22
To: Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Iftekhar Hussain
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan, 
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2015Äê3ÔÂ3ÈÕ 8:56
To: Zhangxian (Xian); CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Xian,
 
Minimum LSP bandwidth will address technological advances. For e.g. 
tomorrow¡¯s 6.25GHz  instead of today¡¯s 12.5GHz. GMPLS extensions should 
cover the case of network having a mix of different hardware capabilities. 

[Xian]: I agree with the above statements. But they are a property of an 
interface, which AFAIC does not change over time. That¡¯s why I said it 
have already be covered by Section 4.3 (please take a look if any 
information is missing as well).  ISCD, especially SCSI is used to 
advertise the available bandwidth information and it is changing 
dynamically. So, I do not think SCSI is the right place to do so.
 
Advertising per priority aligns with RFC4202.  I don¡¯t see any issues.
[Xian] I have to disagree.   RFC4202 does not support advertising min LSP 
bandwidth per priority. Please take a look at the encoding of Section 1.4. 
of RFC4203. What¡¯s said there: for PSC and TDM, you carry ONE minimum LSP 
bandwidth information (which is not associated per priority); for Lambda 
switching, it does not have any SCSI at all. 
 
Having said all these, I personally do not think the value of advertising 
min LSP bandwidth per priority. If you disagree again, could you give me 
an usage example? 
 
As far as Maximum LSP bandwidth goes, either option would work but my 
preference would be to put it in technology specific part (SCSI).
[Xian]: point taken. I agree with you that both work but I would prefer to 
take Option 1. Let¡¯s get a bit more feedback from the WG before updating 
the draft.
 
Regards,
Xian
 
Thx
Rajan
 
From: Zhangxian (Xian) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 10:35 PM
To: Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan, all, 
 
      ¡°Min & Max slot¡± you mentioned below is a bit mis-leading. I think 
you wanted to say ¡°Min & Max LSP bandwidth¡±. Let talk them one by one 
since we are not aligned yet on both. 
 
      Why do we need to advertise Min LSP bandwidth per priority in ISCD, 
e.g., a request cannot set up a LSP smaller than X GHz and it varies per 
priority? If you  meant to say the interface limitation, it is covered in 
Section 4.3 already. 
 
      As for the Max LSP bandwidth information, I agree with you that 
RFC4204 has this requirement. This draft 
(draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01) needs to be updated to 
reflect this. I can think of two options: 
 
Option A: use the existing fields (MAX LSP Bandwidth at priority x, x=0-7) 
 in the ISCD (defined in Section 1.4. of RFC4203). The point that we need 
to update is the unit to be usable in the context of Flexi-grid. It will 
be Hz not byte per second.
 
Option B: We add the max LSP bandwidth field (16 bit) in the Available 
Labels Field by using the Reserved field. 
 
    Which option does the WG prefer?
 
Regards,
Xian
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2015Äê2ÔÂ28ÈÕ 2:51
To: Zhangxian (Xian); CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Xian, all
 
Section 4.3 is trying to use port label restrictions sub-TLV with a new 
restriction type.  This is fine.  But how does a path computing node 
determine if it can use the link to setup an LSP with N-slots @ priority 
¡®p¡¯?   For e.g  I don¡¯t want to allow priority 7 LSPs to use bandwidth 
greater than 20 slots on the link but allow for LSPs with priority 0, 1 & 
2.  Where is this info in the TLV?
 
We had given examples when we presented our draft in Taipei IETF-82.  Ref 
slides 8 & 10 (link below).  We had coverage for advertisement of  Min & 
Max slot widths per priority. This is meant to align with RFC 4202.  I 
believe WG doc lacks this and needs to address.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/ccamp-18.pdf
 
thx
Rajan
From: Zhangxian (Xian) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 5:33 PM
To: Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan and all,
 
Thank you for your clarification and I now fully understand your question. 
I think you have misunderstood Section 4.3. of this draft. It was not to 
describe dynamic Max & Min LSP bandwidth but rather the 
capability/constraint associated with an port, which rarely change over 
time.
 
Isn¡¯t information per priority already supported? Quoting text from the 
drafts referred:
 
¡°The technology specific part of the WSON ISCD may include a variable
   number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs.¡±
 
As for the Mix and Max LSP bandwidth, could you give me an example of what 
you said below, i.e.,¡°Availability of  ¡®N¡¯ consecutive labels doesn¡¯t 
mean you can setup an LSP with a size of ¡®N¡¯¡±? 
 
    What does the WG think of the issue under discussion?
 
Regards,
Xian
 
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2015Äê2ÔÂ27ÈÕ 4:03
To: Zhangxian (Xian); CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Biao Lu
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Xian,
 
I understand this doc is trying to reuse GEN-ENCODE & there is support for 
priority.  I am not referring to this one.  The Min Width & Max  Width 
fields do exist in the draft but these alone are not sufficient. We need 
info per priority for the following reason.
 
The intent of Min & Max width info is to specify what is the 
Minimum/Maximum LSP bandwidth an LSP could reserve at a given priority ¡®p
¡¯ on the link.  You can draw parallel to ¡®Minimum LSP Bandwidth¡¯ & ¡®
Maximum LSP Bandwidth¡¯ fields in RFC 4202. 
 
I don¡¯t understand how you can derive this from label set field. 
Availability of  ¡®N¡¯ consecutive labels doesn¡¯t mean you can setup an 
LSP with a size of ¡®N¡¯. 
 
Thx
Rajan
 
 
From: Zhangxian (Xian) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 5:37 PM
To: Rajan Rao; CCAMP ([e-mail]); 'Ramon Casellas'
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan,
 
    As I was not involved earlier, I find the following may be  a bit long 
for others in the WG to get involved.  Before I dive into the discussion 
and share my thoughts, am I accurate if I recap the question as:
 
   You think the existing text in 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01 do not support the following: 
1)      Do not support priority; 
2)      Do not convey the min & max LSP bandwidth information in the SCSI 
field; 
 
Could you confirm my interpretation of your issue?
 
The following is my thoughts ( subject to change if the question I 
recapped above is not as exact as what you want to say):
 
The  current method is to reuse what has already been proposed for WSON. 
So it reuses the SCSI field defined in WSON-OSPF draft (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-15#section-3.1
). So, it DOES support priority (see the details are in [GEN-ENCODE] 
draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-20). Exactly because of the 
same reason, the draft under discussion uses label set field to describe 
what frequency slots are available. So, although it allows for all 
different varieties supported by [GEN-ENCODE] (i.e., list, bitmap, 
inclusive, exclusive etc.), the method does not see the need of specify 
the max&min LSP bandwidth since it can be naturally deduced from the 
available frequency spectrum information conveyed. 
 
The above discussion actually reminds me of a question Ramon raised up a 
while ago among the authors of this draft, what has been defined in 
WSON-OSPF is truly usable labels in signaling. But with Flexi-grid, it is 
not true anymore. For example, although we use Inclusive Label Range to 
describe available frequency range, say the example in Section 4.4 of 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01 (assume m=1), none of these 
labels are directly usable if what is actually requested is a bandwidth 
with m=2.  I myself do not see any issue as long as we make it clear we 
use the format just to describe what resource available NOT usable labels. 
Since it is a WG draft, it is worthwhile to solicit what you think?
 
Cheers,
Xian
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2015Äê2ÔÂ26ÈÕ 7:17
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang; CCAMP ([e-mail])
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Zhangxian (Xian); Ramon Casellas; 
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Daniele,
 
Sure.  Added WG in the list for comments.
 
Thx
Rajan 
 
From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 12:45 PM
To: Rajan Rao; Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Zhangxian (Xian); Ramon Casellas; 
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi all,
 
This is a really interesting discussion and since we¡¯re speaking about a 
working group draft I think we should continue con the mailing list.
Please include the WG in your reply.
 
BR
Daniele
 
From: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: mercoled¨¬ 25 febbraio 2015 19:56
To: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Zhangxian (Xian); Daniele 
Ceccarelli; Ramon Casellas; Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
The priority in each layer is independent.  The intent of explicitly 
carrying priority info in the advertisement is to allow for LSP creation 
at different priorities.  Note that priority defined in OTN RFC don¡¯t 
apply here as it is a different layer.   You can have L0-LSP setup at 
priority-1 but L1-Telink (OTN link) formed out of this may advertise all 8 
or subset of them.  It is an implementation choice.  I don¡¯t see any 
conflicts here.
 
Once we agree on the following items we can figure out TLV encoding 
options.
 
1.      Allow for Advertisement of Min & Max slot widths at different 
priorities ¨C up to 8
2.      Min/Max slot width field ¨C 16 bit instead of 8  (I see you are 
agreeing to this change below)
3.      Max LSP Bandwidth ¨C this was debated in previous meetings but no 
firm conclusion. 
 
Thx
Rajan
 
From: Zhenghaomian [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 11:35 PM
To: Rajan Rao; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain; Zhangxian (Xian); Daniele 
Ceccarelli; Ramon Casellas; Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Subject: ´ð¸´: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan,
 
Thanks for the information, I noticed there is a change talking about 
extending Flexi-grid data plan to satisfy requirements in RFC4202. I 
forward this email to all the authors of OSPF draft to advertise your 
commentsJ 
 
Firstly let¡¯s recall the sub-TLV format in 
draft-dhillon-ccamp-flexgrid-ospfte-ext as follow: 
 
  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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Type=1            |              Length           |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Slice Spacing | Pri |                    Reserved              |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |               N-Start         |          Num of Slices        |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |         Min Slot Width        |       Max Slot Width          |
   +---------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                                               |
   |                   Bit-Map showing Available Slices           |
   |                     (up to 48 bytes)                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 
Then I share my understanding on your concern. Compared with sub-TLV in 
section 4.3 of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01, I highlight the 
difference as follow: 
 
In your proposal, 
1)      Slice Spacing is preferred to be carried in the  sub-TLV; 
2)      Priority bits are preferred to be included in sub-TLV;
3)      Min/Max Widths should both be 16-bit; 
4)      N-start and Num of Slices to represent the spectrum rather than 
C.F.G and S.W.G; 
 
Below please find my comments: 
Firstly I believe both of your structure and the current structure in WG 
draft are satisfying the requirement of flexi-grid FWK draft (the info 
model in Fig. 17). We only need to deal with some differences in 
representation format, and some additional information may be useful. 
 
1)      Different slice spacing is applicable but may not be necessary; 
the spirit to introduce flexible grid is to allow flexibility in spectrum 
allocation and current WG draft can satisfy the requirement. Not much 
further advantage for using slice spacing; 
2)      Priority bits: I agree that it is widely used, I am basically fine 
to include priority bits in the sub-TLV. My only concern is, there are 
also such priority information in other place (for example OTN BW sub-TLV 
in Section 4.1.3 in RFC7138), do we need to repeat here? What is the 
relationship if we have two priorities? Is it possible the OTN priority is 
not consistent with flexi-grid priority? Why? And How to deal with this?
3)      Agreed, will change both the min/max widths to 16-bit in the next 
version; 
4)      Personally I don¡¯t think it¡¯s necessary to change the current WG 
draft: I think your proposed representation can have equivalent result as 
the one in current WG draft;
 
Rajan, please correct me if there is misunderstanding, also let me know if 
you have other comments. 
 
All, please feel free to comments, or we move to the list if necessaryJ
 
Best wishes,
Haomian
 
·¢¼þÈË: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2015Äê2ÔÂ24ÈÕ 4:03
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
³­ËÍ: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain
Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
The Flexgrid FWK doc has been updated with reference to RFC4202.   This 
should address the comment you had in the earlier email.  Pl refer to 
updated doc (attached email from Ramon).  Pl let us know how you would 
like to proceed. 
 
FWK doc Snip below:
 
5.1.2.  Routing
 
   The routing protocol will support all functions as described in
   [RFC4202] and extend them to a flexi-grid data plane.
 
Thx
Rajan
 
From: Rajan Rao 
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 2:28 PM
To: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
Thx for the reply. Pl see below.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Zhenghaomian [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 11:22 PM
To: Rajan Rao; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain
Subject: ´ð¸´: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan,
 
Firstly sorry for the very late response.
 
For your first concern, I see some difference in TLVs about priority issue 
(Table I in your draft). I think I understand your description but I 
didn't find very much advantage to include such 'scalable' settings. 
 
RR>> Priority based advertisement is pretty standard mechanism used in all 
existing RFCs.  For e.g. you can find these in WSON, OTN  docs and any 
other Te-extensions draft. 
 
Another concern from me is, for the flexi-grid literature, there are more 
than one WG draft, I think it's better to consider such case in fwk draft, 
and after that the OSPF one can revise accordingly. P.S, I don't know 
whether this topic was discussed on the list before (perhaps there are 
some conclusions, let me know). If not, I would like to suggest move to 
the list.
 
RR>> I looked at framework.  Yes, it doesn¡¯t talk about priority based 
advertisement.  Thanks for pointing this out. Good catch. We will provide 
this comment to FWK authors & CC you.  I do not see any issue updating the 
fwk doc with this detail. 
 
For your second concern on Max LSP Bandwidth, my understanding is you are 
trying to use the description in section 3.2 of your draft to replace the 
one in section 4.3 of current WG draft. Is this true? I believe the 
description in your draft is clear and correct. BTW, I noticed bit 
difference in Min Bandwidth (16 bits allocated in your draft and 8 bit in 
current WG draft), hopefully this will not be a big issue (8 bit support a 
bandwidth up to 3200GHz, which is absolutely more than the normal 
requirement for a minimal BW).
 
RR>>  Yes, I was referring to section 3.2 in our draft. 
We went with 16-bit fields for Min & Max fields as the values for these 
fields range from 0 ¨C 384.  We tried to address the case of using full 
spectrum BW as one LSP.  This is an extreme case but can¡¯t be ruled out.
 
Pl let me know if you have any other comments.
Thanks.
 
Best wishes,
Haomian
 
-----ÓʼþÔ­¼þ-----
·¢¼þÈË: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2014Äê12ÔÂ18ÈÕ 6:09
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
³­ËÍ: Khuzema Pithewan; Iftekhar Hussain
Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
As I had mentioned we are no longer pushing for SuperChannel in the draft. 
 So, this should make it easier to merge the docs.
 
In my view there are couple of areas your draft doesn't address which can 
be taken from our draft:
 
1.  You have separated Max & Min Slot width in Port Label restriction 
sub-TLV.  This is O.K. But this doesn't allow for priority based Min/Max 
usage.   Our draft allows for this flexibility which can be used.
2.  Max LSP Bandwidth field definition can be taken from our doc.
 
The priority handling can be further simplified by merging slice info & 
Min/Max fields in to a single sub-TLV if other authors agree.
 
Pl let me know.
 
Thx
Rajan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Zhenghaomian [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 5:15 PM
To: Rajan Rao; Fatai Zhang
Cc: Khuzema Pithewan
Subject: ´ð¸´: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Hi, Rajan and Khuzema,
 
Thanks for reminding. Do you guys have any suggestion on how to merge? 
Even if we think the current draft is self-contained, we are still open on 
this. 
 
I know there are some different ideas from Infinera, but sorry I am not 
fully understand every detail. Please let me know the exact section that 
need to be updated and let's see how to proceed. Again, this will finally 
be determined by the WG since already adopted. 
 
Thanks.
 
Best wishes,
Haomian
 
-----ÓʼþÔ­¼þ-----
·¢¼þÈË: Rajan Rao [mailto:[e-mail]] 
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2014Äê12ÔÂ17ÈÕ 6:01
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Zhenghaomian; Fatai Zhang
³­ËÍ: Khuzema Pithewan
Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Haomian,
 
We had sent couple of emails asking about merging the contents with our 
draft.  Do you see an opportunity or any issues with the merge?  Can you 
pl respond on how you would like to proceed? Pl see the attached email we 
had sent a while back.
 
 
Thanks
Rajan
 
-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zhenghaomian
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 12:24 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [CCAMP] ת·¢: I-D Action: 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
Dear CCAMPers,
 
We upload an updated version to reactivate the following draft against 
expiration, together updating the Max width issue proposed in previous 
discussions. Your comments are highly welcomed, thanks.
 
Best wishes,
Haomian on behalf of authors
 
-----ÓʼþÔ­¼þ-----
·¢¼þÈË: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] ´ú±í 
[e-mail]
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2014Äê12ÔÂ16ÈÕ 16:16
ÊÕ¼þÈË: [e-mail]
³­ËÍ: [e-mail]
Ö÷Ìâ: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
 
 
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane 
Working Group of the IETF.
 
        Title           : GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in support of Flexible 
Grid
        Authors         : Xian Zhang
                          Haomian Zheng
                          Ramon Casellas
                          Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
                          Daniele Ceccarelli
               Filename        : 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt
               Pages           : 14
               Date            : 2014-12-16
 
Abstract:
   This memo describes the OSPF-TE extensions in support of GMPLS
   control of networks that include devices that use the new flexible
   optical grid.
 
 
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext/
 
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01
 
A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01
 
 
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
tools.ietf.org.
 
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
 
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp