Re: [CCAMP] clarification about draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps

Francesco Fondelli <francesco.fondelli@gmail.com> Tue, 02 April 2013 09:22 UTC

Return-Path: <francesco.fondelli@gmail.com>
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 372E021F9772 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 ytrBMFg6U0lF for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3154121F86D5 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c10so2952725wiw.0 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xja4vbxEz/pQ82GWpQXXCFs4IRwolhdJ4cLPVoMS+XY=; b=ec3+VkgvtJpIgznPW4uj+Q6UnvD5PdeCZHRErBVx0783rbN81uFqK0O9DeXRl5r7Zp nhbpfDKTF5d+v0lakCl4jgLX35+GgT9UH/jkevZJrmfccqd/yZFw/vLo9RpBHxiGjPXl NHnNGJZF8OhyNNulbIb8AFZh/pnxFh0qTUp8Qx+FRwJ+vjOUP5jZ3mVFsIb7GharP/sV jD3TUcNxxr1XJhRz/HGUdoRTkDAX9DKXqp0g4AjdTx5OXo9+u1zd9Xve8MkJtbzY22kx vzxZ3Fnw7ExurSJHvfoTgSo4w0QFAHabN4Ns1tPFRNwL2jyd4J3Hbem1L2mBUG6oH3Le aDzA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.195.12.133 with SMTP id eq5mr20132819wjd.52.1364894544359; Tue, 02 Apr 2013 02:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.22.36 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 02:22:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C82A8BB6@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <CABP12JwDkUkRayvoE-orb3ZNANgDpaLqQYOyOC=pL=OFYi2Dew@mail.gmail.com> <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C82A8BB6@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 11:22:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CABP12JxWpt39JzGsh3bxzi7imvHmRA_VJoQqra2eKaEhnQ+vmw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francesco Fondelli <francesco.fondelli@gmail.com>
To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] clarification about draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps
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: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:22:26 -0000

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:06 PM, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com> wrote:
> Hi Francesco,

Hi Deborah,

> While these may be protection switching parameters, this draft is about configuration of these parameters. Protection switching provisioning has always been treated as a common equipment management functionality - same as performance management and fault management (refer to G.7710 section 8). So it is in scope of OAM configuration. CCAMP's OAM configuration work has been focused on PM and FM but it is generally applicable (hopefully) to any equipment management configuration.

  Puzzled.  If we follow this reasoning (i.e. common equipment management
functionalities => should use OAM framework) then almost any aspect of
networking can be applicable to OAM and so any operation should exploit
the OAM framework draft.

  For example, G.7710 section 8.6.1 describes the provisioning
of cross-connections but this does not imply that we are going to use the
OAM framework to establish label binding in the next GMPLS controlled
technology, I guess we will continue to use LABEL_REQUEST/LABEL objects
(plus any other relevant info).

> Lou's comment is that the WG has chosen the approach used in the OAM framework document for configuration. Instead of updating the protection object at this time as your draft proposes, the question is have you considered using the OAM configuration TLV? First, we need to understand why you have chosen to not use this approach. Then we can discuss pros and cons.

  Well, at the beginning we did not take it into consideration
because [4] predate [1].  Later we did not take [1] into consideration
simply because we thought [4] was out of OAM framework scope.

  Having said that, I have no problem rewriting [4] using OAM
configuration TLV.  It's just weird to me but I can live with it.

> BR-
> Deborah

thank you
ciao
fra

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Francesco Fondelli
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 12:20 PM
> To: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] clarification about draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps
>
> quoting item 15, from www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-ccamp
>
> Lou Berger: I think you misunderstood my comment from the last meeting. You
> should look at leveraging the OAM configuration work which came after the
> earlier versions of your draft.
> Zafar Ali: this is applicable to multiple technologies.
> Lou Berger: yes, the OAM configuration framework is also applicable to
> multiple technologies. You need a strong reason not to follow the WG in
> this area. Please look at the OAM configuration document
> [draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk] and either follow it or state why
> your work is justified in not following the existing WG solution in this
> area.
>
> ---
>
> Hi all,
>
>   the OAM configuration framework [1] is about OAM.  Therefore, it is used in
> order to signal OAM functionalities: CC/CV and PM/FM in MPLS-TP [2], CC/CV
> TTI/SAPI/DAPI in SONET/SDH/OTN [3]... while our draft [4] is about *protection
> switching*.  HOFF, WTR and SNC sub-type are protection switching parameters.
>
>   I believe HOFF, WTR and SNC sub-type are outside of the OAM configuration
> framework scope and should be signaled as any other protection switching
> params (i.e. via PROTECTION object).
>
>   I hope this answer Lou question reported above (item 15, IETF 86 ccamp
> minutes).  Authors of [4] would like to understand WG's view about this point
> and are soliciting for comments.
>
> thank you
> ciao
> FF
>
> [1]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-09
>
> [2]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-11
>
> [3]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-sdh-otn-oam-ext-05
>
> [4]
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-takacs-ccamp-revertive-ps-08
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp