Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Thu, 29 January 2015 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6659A1A1A3D for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:51:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fRJjrC2BFgAJ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:51:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AADD1A1A33 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BOO29520; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:51:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML705-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.142) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:51:32 +0000
Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.225]) by dfweml705-chm ([10.193.5.142]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:51:20 -0800
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Varma, Eve L (Eve)'" <eve.varma@alcatel-lucent.com>, "db3546@att.com" <db3546@att.com>, "'Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)'" <kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com>, "ggrammel@juniper.net" <ggrammel@juniper.net>, "giomarti@cisco.com" <giomarti@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
Thread-Index: AQHQNyyKmWicGibpQEGWYW2s/gCycJzOdnmAgAAengCAA5dgAIAEL7YA//+TloCAAJDSAP//e+qggACJ8QCAAAbcgP//fJJwADNyZIAADdFHgA==
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:51:20 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C7F37D@dfweml706-chm>
References: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C7F0A9@dfweml706-chm> <6D32668528F93D449A073F45707153D82C533567@US70UWXCHMBA03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <086901d03b3a$c7386c10$55a94430$@olddog.co.uk> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C7F161@dfweml706-chm> <00ff01d03bc6$d84bbcf0$88e336d0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <00ff01d03bc6$d84bbcf0$88e336d0$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: F0Ml I3lZ JpKH M8Av QHrK SSFr ahF6 csHr h9wV pzqS rbnY tArS xoUr zfuk 946r AARJew==; 10; 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; Sosha1_v1; 7; {E3731D3A-BB84-489F-B91C-AEDE031699AF}; bABlAGUAeQBvAHUAbgBnAEAAaAB1AGEAdwBlAGkALgBjAG8AbQA=; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:50:57 GMT; UgBFADoAIABbAEMAQwBBAE0AUABdACAAVgBlAG4AZABvAHIALQBTAHAAZQBjAGkAZgBpAGMAIABBAHAAcABsAGkAYwBhAHQAaQBvAG4AIABDAG8AZABlACAAaQBuACAAZAByAGEAZgB0AC0AaQBlAHQAZgAtAGMAYwBhAG0AcAAtAHIAdwBhAC0AdwBzAG8AbgAtAGUAbgBjAG8AZABlAA==
x-cr-puzzleid: {E3731D3A-BB84-489F-B91C-AEDE031699AF}
x-originating-ip: [10.47.138.119]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/nf2uzGZW80c8A4watTzXaq9RRAY>
Cc: "paul.doolan@coriant.com" <paul.doolan@coriant.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:51:39 -0000

Hi,

It seems like the world is against Option 1. No big deal, please provide relevant text to support Option 2. 

Young



-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 7:24 AM
To: Leeyoung; 'Varma, Eve L (Eve)'; db3546@att.com; 'Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)'; ggrammel@juniper.net; giomarti@cisco.com
Cc: paul.doolan@coriant.com; ccamp@ietf.org; ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Vendor-Specific Application Code in draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

Hi again,

> There is always a priori knowledge in optical network domain as to who 
> are you interfacing with. So you know which vendor you are interfacing. 
> If you do not know, then you are in trouble.

Hmmm. It is exactly type of trouble we are trying to detect and protect against.

I refute your statement of a priori knowledge. I think there is a priori intention, but not knowledge. Unless you have very good eyesight or someone at the other end of the fiber when you give it a tug, you don't know. And even then. Fibering errors happen from time to time. Consider, in particular a patch panel.

> Now, what is the purpose of standard FECs and modulations in the AI? Given
> several choices each vendor may support in its device, the path computation
> would find a matched types for FEC and modulation for a given optical path. 
> This is what is intended when optical signal processing constraints were 
> proposed as part of path computation constraints in optical networks. 


The case you are making here is for no standard control plane!
What is the point of standardising if there is never any interworking?
But actually, we know about interworking at the physical layer, and (more important) we know about a single, end-to-end control plane that spans multiple vendor devices. It all exists.

Of course, we can fall back into the old-style vendor islands, and many like to do so. But it is not a compulsory deployment model.

> There is very little chance for vendor specific FECs and Modulations will match
> even if they are identified with the OUI code. 

You have it the wrong way round!
The OUI is largely to protect against expectations of interworking when none can exist.
It might (much less frequently) be used to describe the way that vendorA and vendorB pick FECs and modulations in order to achieve interworking.

Adrian