Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709 open issues)

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Btw, what is the alleged ambiguity to which you refer?

Sent from my iPhone

On May 20, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> John,
> There's still some ambiguity here.  How about:
> On 5/20/2013 9:15 AM, John E Drake wrote:
>> Length (12 bits): indicates the number of bits of the Bit Map field,
>> i.e., the number of TS in the HO ODUk link.  The TS granularity,
>> 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps, may be derived by dividing the HO ODUk link's
>> rate by the value of the Length field.  
> 
> 
> Replace:
>> For example, for an HO ODU2
>> link, whose link rate is 10Gbps, the value of the Length field will
>> be either 4 or 8 and the TS granularity will be either 2.5Gbps or
>> 1.25Gbps, respectively.
> With:
> 
>   The values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS granularity of 2.5Gps, while
>   the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a TS granularity of 1.25Gps.
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
>> Irrespectively Yours,
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:33 PM
>>> To: John E Drake
>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang; [e-mail];
>>> CCAMP; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709
>>> open issues)
>>> 
>>> John,
>>>    I guess you haven't been paying attention!  The rewrite
>>> originated from Daniele, was tweaked by me and then fixed by Fatai.
>>> 
>>> Do you have an alternate proposal to address issue#48?
>>> Issue #48="In signaling document section 6: Clarify related text [i.e.,
>>> the OLD text] to unambiguously identify the relationship between label
>>> length and TSG."
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lou
>>> 
>>> On 5/17/2013 1:15 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>>>> Lou,
>>>> 
>>>> I think the original text is fine and your attempted re-write
>>> completely mangled its meaning.  The label is a bit vector whose length
>>> is equal to the ODUk rate / TSG.
>>>> 
>>>> Irrespectively Yours,
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Lou Berger
>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:17 AM
>>>>> To: Fatai Zhang
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; CCAMP;
>>>>> draft- [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709
>>>>> open issues)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Authors/WG,
>>>>>    From the mail on the list it seems to me that we've reached
>>> closure
>>>>> on Issue #48: "Document no explicit indication of TSG in the label"
>>>>> (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/trac/ticket/48).  I'd like to
>>>>> confirm my reading.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I read the list, this issue will be resolved by making the
>>>>> following change to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3.
>>>>> 
>>>>> OLD
>>>>>  Note that the
>>>>>  Length field in the label format MAY be used to indicate the TS
>>>>>  type of the HO ODUk (i.e., TS granularity at 1.25Gbps or 2.5Gbps)
>>>>>  since the HO ODUk type can be known from IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object. In
>>>>>  some cases when there is no Link Management Protocol (LMP) or
>>>>>  routing to make the two end points of the link to know the TSG,
>>>>>  the TSG information used by another end can be deduced from the
>>>>>  label format. For example, for HO ODU2 link, the value of the
>>>>>  length filed will be 4 or 8, which indicates the TS granularity is
>>>>>  2.5Gbps or 1.25Gbps, respectively.
>>>>> 
>>>>> NEW
>>>>>  Please note that the TS granularity of an HO ODUk can be inferred
>>>>> from
>>>>>  the length of the label. The values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS
>>>>>  granularity of 2.5Gps, while the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a
>>> TS
>>>>>  granularity of 1.25Gps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please speak up if you disagree with this resolution.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Lou
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/9/2013 9:41 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> For point 1), "1" should be dropped and "7" should be corrected to
>>>>> "8" in your proposed text.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>