Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues

"Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" <> Fri, 14 March 2014 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06AB1A006B for <>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.047
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PAS5PIJ1DdD7 for <>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AD61A0059 for <>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=27441; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1394782936; x=1395992536; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=EKQUnP8C7gII6LTL2NWKyITngectsJU+2MQ0zeG7a28=; b=gC/2WieR4ChK4qYgzoTAs2UM6jw3svE6qdiLgaFY4mRzk8IbqH4M4ubO YRz+wAo+Ahl+4MbwN3C/C+pjC1TD2AbifvhcejdSIp+IGyOL25Fk6+R3v blBRQUfum4wOZNDwnw3eYjAwrHxGcz+UVIPSQB9X8auIHlAcwCSXPdF0K M=;
X-Files: 273031C1-0F11-4D42-9226-D16B7CB14162[47].png : 1632
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,653,1389744000"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150"; a="27431147"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 Mar 2014 07:42:15 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2E7gF1L030961 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 07:42:15 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 02:42:15 -0500
From: "Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)" <>
To: Fatai Zhang <>, Dieter Beller <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues
Thread-Index: Ac8+yaJXH8vwWfWRQbyQfVfsHVxr9AAL47aAABUjWwAAD11PAA==
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 07:42:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_CF486F285AB8Aggalimbeciscocom_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 07:42:26 -0000

Hi All,

Thanks for the comments and suggestion.
The first action I would take is update the draft with the explanations requested during the ccamp session and in mailing list.

I'm not aware of any LMP extensions to support other technologies as Fatai is asking (apart the recent draft on sson),  I think this can be a matter of collaboration
Discussing also whether to extend the existing draft or propose a new one.
I prefer the second option.

I'd also note that the LMP is not an extension of the UNI, LMP is a management protocol to help interface management:
Discovery, negotiation, alarm correlation, etc.
It can run on interfaces not "served" by UNI e.g. On spans between ROADMS.



Gabriele Galimberti
Technical Leader
Cisco Photonics Srl

Via Philips, 12
20900 - Monza (MI)
Phone :+39 039 2091462
Mobile :+39 335 7481947
Fax :+39 039 2092049

From: Fatai Zhang <<>>
Date: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:22 AM
To: Dieter Beller <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues

Hi Ruediger and other authors,

I agree with Dieter’s point.

Is it really known what information can/should be exchanged and what can/should not? How to justify?

In addition, do you see any draft about LMP ext over UNI for other technologies such as OTN, WSON, SDH, etc. defined in CCAMP?

If no, why not make this draft more generic?

I would also kindly suggest the authors have a look at the OIF UNI IAs (UNI 1.0 & UNI 2.0 and their difference) to see if it really makes sense to have LMP ext over UNI.

Best Regards


From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Dieter Beller
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues

Hi Ruediger,
On 13.03.2014 15:36,<> wrote:
Hi all,

Huub and Dieter mentioned during the CAMP session in London that ITU-T Q6 has some concerns about additional values in document.

Huub mentioned that - I asked a follow-up question regarding the exchange of power values (see below).

Gabriele mentioned the reason for adding these values and we will update the documents with explaining text. During our common meeting with ITU-T at IETF  86 Pete Anslow mentioned: Transmit power may be useful, beyond that I cannot think of anything else you may want to set.

If you guys have still concerns lets discuss these points on the list.
The question I have is the following:

The draft defines LMP protocol messages (sub-objects) to convey the (current?) Output Power at the Ss
reference point and the Current Input Power at the Rs reference point from OXC1 to OLS1 and OXC2 to OLS2,
respectively. This is my interpretation. Now, I would like to understand for what purposes these power values
are exchanged.

My suggestion at the meeting was to add some explanatory text to the draft describing the application that
makes use of these values, i.e., that motivates the definition of these LMP extensions.


Best regards



CCAMP mailing list<>