Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode

["Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]>]

One additional comment (hoping not additional confusion). 

The idea about Optical Interface Class was taken from SRLG. Good or bad is a plain number and you do simple operations on it. 

Cheers
G

On 22 Jan 2015, at 09:42, Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Adrian,
> 
> On 21 Jan 2015, at 22:55, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Well, you seem to have a half-way house.
>> 
>> You have specified the existence of a thing, but not how to read it.
>> 
>> If you wanted to make a statement that this object will only be used when it is
>> known that all systems in a network come from the same vendor and/or have the
>> same understanding of the encoding, that might be OK (although how you would
>> ascertain this might also need to be described).
>> 
> 
> The statement is to ensure the interface compatibility without encoding all the possible details and parameter that define an interface (e.g. modulation format, forward error correction etc.). This was the initial solution in the draft then replaced by the interface class concept.   The WSON (RWA-only) has the requirement is to make sure two interface are compatible. This requirement, imho, can be satisfy by a simple comparison which has a boolean result. 
> 
> We end up then in  the ITU application codes for the “certified” (we’ll this is my term not 100% sure is the best one) compatibility where proper encoding is provided. 
> 
> 
>> Or you could entirely remove the vendor-specific option.
>> 
>> Or you could put in an OUI / enterprise number followed by transparent bytes.
>> 
> 
> To me I’m perfectly fine with the second option. 
> 
> Cheers
> G
> 
> 
>> Adrian
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 21 January 2015 21:22
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Cc: Leeyoung; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
>>> 
>>> Specifically to the Interface class here below.
>>> 
>>> In the initial draft merged to this one there was the usage of OUI however (I
>>> guess after chatting with Lou) we decided to remove any encoding when the
>>> Interface class is not standard.
>>> In term of semantic the protcol does not need to decode the Interface class
>> since
>>> it only assess the interface compatibility if two interfaces has a class value
>> that
>>> match two interfaces cann be connected.
>>> 
>>> Having saying that I don't have strong opinion in adding the OUI or leaving
>> room
>>> for maybe future public interfaces database. For sure there's a need to leave
>>> room for specific compatibility assesment since there optical multivendor
>>> compatibility has been already demonstrated.
>>> 
>>> hope this help .
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> G
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 21:57, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Section 4.1
>>>>>> How do I interpret a Vendor-Specific Application Code? Is there an OUI
>>>>>> I'm missing?
>>>>> 
>>>>> [YOUNG] Not sure if I understood this question. What is "OUI"?
>>>> 
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizationally_unique_identifier
>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers/ieee-802-
>>> numbers.xhtml#ieee-802
>>>> -numbers-2
>>>> 
>>>> Or perhaps an Enterprise Number
>>>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/enterprise-numbers
>>>> 
>>>> The question is:
>>>> 
>>>> You have sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.4 to tell me how to interpret the
>> Optical
>>>> Interface Class field when it contains an ITU-T Application Mapping.
>>>> When I received s=0 and OI=1 it means that the Optical Interface Class
>> contains
>>>> a "Vendor Specific Optical Interface Class".
>>>> How do I interpret that Optical Interface Class?
>>>> Which vendor does it apply to?
>>>> Is there some information elsewhere that gives me a clue as to which vendor
>>> has
>>>> encoded the information?
>>>> Or is the information supposed to be encoded in the Optical Interface Class,
>>>> perhaps as the first 48 bits?
>>>> Or am I supposed to know by context?
>> 
>