Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on Flex-E YANG model structure [was  RE:CCAMPDigest, Vol 139, Issue 5]

Jiangyuanlong <> Mon, 06 January 2020 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0590D120058 for <>; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BKtIWCATLNgO for <>; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 18:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A823B120019 for <>; Sun, 5 Jan 2020 18:20:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C064254FF7550C6005F9 for <>; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 02:20:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 02:20:29 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 02:20:29 +0000
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 02:20:28 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 10:20:18 +0800
From: Jiangyuanlong <>
To: "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W0NDQU1QXSAgRGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvbiBGbGV4LUUgWUFORyBtb2RlbCBzdHJ1?= =?utf-8?B?Y3R1cmUgW3dhcyDCoFJFOkNDQU1QRGlnZXN0LCBWb2wgMTM5LCBJc3N1ZSA1?= =?utf-8?Q?]?=
Thread-Index: AQHVwiHCcsWfnB6RVEu/9HGUzjkpeKfc5OAg
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 02:20:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3B0A1BED22CAD649A1B3E97BE5DDD68BD382DAEFdggeml532mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] =?utf-8?q?Discussion_on_Flex-E_YANG_model_structure_=5Bw?= =?utf-8?q?as_=C2=A0RE=3ACCAMPDigest=2C_Vol_139=2C_Issue_5=5D?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 02:20:35 -0000


Please see my comments inline.


From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2020 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Discussion on Flex-E YANG model structure [was  RE:CCAMPDigest, Vol 139, Issue 5]

hi,  yuanlong

Please refer to comments entitled with [Xiaobing]

On the contrary, the description in Section 5 of OIF FlexE 2.0 is more specific: "The FlexE Shim is the layer that maps or demaps the FlexE Clients carried over a FlexE Group" and "Each FlexE Client has its own separate MAC, Reconciliation Sublayer, and xMII above the FlexE Shim which operate at the FlexE Client rate." The relationship of a FlexE Client, FlexE Shim and its FlexE Group is rather fixed according to this description.

[Xiaobing] In my opinion, those descriptions exactly support the flexibility between FlexE clients and a FlexE group.

[Jiang] Yes, it should be flexible, but not in the way “they (FlexE Clients) can stand alone before configured to a FlexE group”.

In Rob’s YANG module, the modeling of “client-interface” (similar to flexe-client-list in draft-jiang) actually has an attribute “name if:interface-ref”, which can reference to any internal interface (as described in 7.2.1, unclear what parameter is to be managed yet) or any Ethernet PHY (as described in 7.2.2).

Therefore, it provides the flexibility to support any type of FlexE Client bit-stream (i.e., 64B/66B encoded bit-stream).

Otherwise, if FlexE Client is modeled as standalone and could be associated with different FlexE Groups (assuming there is such a support in the data plane), we can hardly configure anything when its FlexE Group is undetermined, since:

[Xiaobing] The configuration of a FlexE client and group can be performed at different time. Just image you first establish a FlexE group without carry any FlexE client, and then configure some FlexE clients over that group.

[Jiang] Totally agreed that we can create a FlexE Group first, and then configure FlexE Clients over that group. My point was “not to create FlexE Clients first, and then associate with a FlexE Group”.


Xiaobing Niu