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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 17 May 2013 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6990921F9626 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 13:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.172, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X4rCVezqToLR for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 13:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 686B221F9664 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 13:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21572 invoked by uid 0); 17 May 2013 20:32:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 17 May 2013 20:32:31 -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:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=/KBfCjgtyiRnC+J+ud6FdKz9QWgjlfiUoretjyemXS8=; b=eni6haVl/diZnEmG363SbqPXBR6sVYNAuVex+fQxh4B9yqdXz6yTYJe2jgvDNRKWIqjQXaV4hhFlzeBZd013A8KpXSpvWdHUJxa65A9WRQGWJScahMgcsNaBjGeDRCX1;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:46068 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UdRKJ-0003sF-Da; Fri, 17 May 2013 14:32:31 -0600
Message-ID: <519693DF.6000003@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:32:31 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
References: <518A82D9.7080508@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B000@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <518BAB17.9090807@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480C67D9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <518BDAFF.40706@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B39A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <519657FE.5030602@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D5009B0@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D5009B0@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
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}
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709 open issues)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 17 May 2013 20:33:01 -0000

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: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 9:17 AM
>> To: Fatai Zhang
>> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org; CCAMP; draft-
>> ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>> 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
>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>