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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 23 May 2013 01:28 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 E8BF611E8182 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 18:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.443
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.178, 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 RKcr-UUIermQ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy14-pub.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy14-pub.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.51.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 55B7A11E8181 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 389 invoked by uid 0); 23 May 2013 01:27:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy14.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 23 May 2013 01:27:55 -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=OjwO5ssjQ+faWgkwcOOfD690vy6blFOIIQaCDjRSr94=; b=Bi1U15ae9Asse4CAJicxDij4pbOIgDv4rRxSNDqlL0IMf3knAt+s9TuD+LpbA/QzF8I4vMn0nOXH8ZiVTeZOKJrr9vMrukepL5efyWUTZtYVkH8CQXOLRAPjRTqSvbl7;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:50484 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UfKJu-0002JR-LG; Wed, 22 May 2013 19:27:54 -0600
Message-ID: <519D709A.5020609@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:27:54 -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: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
References: <518A82D9.7080508@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> <519693DF.6000003@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D504EAD@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>, <519A6EC1.4080205@labn.net> <9574E62A-6A68-4290-A103-8A0A750E2004@juniper.net>, <519A8A7D.5020002@labn.net> <ABBBA19E-EDF3-4B68-AC13-64F1C7E946EE@juniper.net> <519B6A75.5040803@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D508BCA@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <13ec9ac042d.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D50937C@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>, <519D0049.80709@labn.net> <2F3E6A05-D111-4CB2-B2AD-59AE980A2043@juniper.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319B70A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huaw ei.com>
In-Reply-To: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84319B70A@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.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: 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: Thu, 23 May 2013 01:28:03 -0000

drop the OLD text (identified in the trac issue) & replace Length field
definition with:

>> 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.  In the
>> context of [G709-2012], the values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS
>> granularity of 2.5Gps, and the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a
>> TS granularity of 1.25Gps.

Lou


On 5/22/2013 8:55 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi Lou and John,
> 
> Thanks for your discussion on providing the proposed text.
> 
> However, I am lost by the discussion. 
> 
> What is the final proposed text? I hope someone can finalize it.
> 
> I think it is time to conclude the discussion on this point (the original point 1). 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Fatai
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:01 AM
> To: Lou Berger
> Cc: Fatai Zhang; CCAMP
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709 open issues)
> 
> Bummer
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On May 22, 2013, at 10:45 AM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> 
>> I'm empathetic with the addition, but suspect it's best not to put the
>> first 10 words in the draft...
>>
>> Lou
>>
>> On 5/21/2013 8:45 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>>> It should be blindingly obvious to the informed reader that in the context of [G709-2012], the values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS granularity of 2.5Gps, and the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a TS granularity of 1.25Gps.
>>>
>>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:38 PM
>>>> To: John E Drake
>>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org;
>>>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing G.709
>>>> open issues)
>>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> Great. It seems we agree that it shouldn't have been necessary to
>>>> discuss this point so many times, and that the additional text doesn't
>>>> change the field definition. It is informative narrative after all.
>>>>
>>>> Now that said, can you live with the revised "overly precise" text so
>>>> that we can move forward (and ensure we're not back here again)?
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>> On May 21, 2013 4:23:37 PM John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote:
>>>>> Lou,
>>>>>
>>>>> The question that has always been is whether signaling needed to
>>>>> include an explicit TSG filed and the answer has always been no
>>>>> because it can be derived from other fields.  The text I proposed
>>>>> makes that derivation explicit and unambiguous.  The additional text
>>>>> you are proposing adds neither clarity nor information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:37 AM
>>>>>> To: John E Drake
>>>>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang;
>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org;
>>>>>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Confirming plan for Issue #48: (Was: Closing
>>>>>> G.709 open issues) John, Really?  You're joking right?
>>>>>> As I said to Fatai:
>>>>>>   My feeling is that there have been too many "surprises" on the
>>>> 709
>>>>>>   documents in areas that I thought were ... resolved by past
>>>>>>   discussions.  At this point, as co-chair and Document shepherd,
>>>> I
>>>>>>   want to ensure that any open point on the documents are
>>>>>>   unambiguously closed and that past discussions (i.e., points of
>>>>>>   consensus) are 100% captured, so that we can smoothly move
>>>> through
>>>>>>   the planned second LC and publication request.
>>>>>> The particular point of the ambiguity/implicit nature of
>>>> determining
>>>>>> TSG from length has been brought up at least three times.  (Note,
>>>> by
>>>>>> others in the WG -- this is not my concern.) Each time the
>>>> consensus
>>>>>> from the discussion is to leave as is, but no or only minimal
>>>>>> changes were made to the document.  I opened the trac ticket to
>>>>>> ensure that the consensus was documented in the draft and that we
>>>>>> don't have to yet again revisit this topic -- which *is* my
>>>> concern.
>>>>>> So, the revised text addresses your concern of not needing to
>>>>>> redefine the field for new 709 rate or TSGs, and it is sufficiently
>>>>>> precise so that non should misinterpret the current "implicit"
>>>>>> specification of TSG.
>>>>>> Can we/you accept the revised "overly precise" text and move
>>>> forward?
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>> On 5/20/2013 10:30 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>>>>>>> What is behind your preoccupation with enumerating all possible
>>>>>> combinations of length & TSG?  Do you have trouble with arithmetic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 20, 2013, at 1:42 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2013 3:18 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I think that's a big mistake(tm).  If a new rate or TSG is
>>>>>>>>> introduced the RFC would need to be updated even though the
>>>>>> encoding
>>>>>>>>> does not require it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well that's easily addressed, via something like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.  In the
>>>>>>>> context of [G709-2012], the values of 4 and 16 indicate a TS
>>>>>>>> granularity of 2.5Gps, and the values 2, 8, 32 and 80 indicate a
>>>>>>>> TS granularity of
>>>>>> 1.25Gps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>
>>>> 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:lberger@labn.net]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 1:33 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: John E Drake
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Fatai Zhang;
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org;
>>>>>>>>>>>> CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-
>>>> g709v3@tools.ietf.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: 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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>