Re: [CCAMP] Solicit comments on availability WG drafts

Hi Lou,

Thanks for your comments. Please see my reply below.

For OSPF draft, how about text like this:
"When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1/LSC (other Switching Capability could also be possible), the Switching Capability specific information field MAY include one or more ISCD Availability sub-TLV(s)."
The PSC-2/3/4 are removed to align with RFC7074.

For RSVP draft, the technology specific part in the section 1 will be moved to the appendix. The rest part is generic without the technology specific information, I think.  
And we need input on optical usage. Once we got it, it may goes to the appendix section. Or a separated draft including all the use case might be better?

BR,
Amy
-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:14 PM
To: Yemin (Amy); CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)
Cc: Longhao; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Solicit comments on availability WG drafts

Hi Amy,
    If memory serves this dates back to IETF 90.  It would seem to me that the authors could take a pass at suggesting how to generalize or ask the person who proposed it make a proposal.  It doesn't look too hard:
For the OSPF draft:
    I think you just need to change the 1st line of 3.2 and drop restriction on types. (BTW I don't think you want to reference deprecated types in general, see RFC7074.)

For the RSVP draft:
    I think separating out the generic definition of the function and required information from the technology specifics and allowing form multiple technologies , will go a long (if not all the) way to making the solution generic.  Having a second use technology, e.g., optical, defined would be helpful to ensure that the split is right.

Lou

On 4/23/2015 2:54 AM, Yemin (Amy) wrote:
>
> Dear CCAMPers,
>
>  
>
> We would like to solicit comments on the two availability WG drafts:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-ava
> ilability/
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-ext
> ension/
>
>  
>
> There were some comments to generalize the draft to optical area.
> However, how to generalize is still missing.
>
> We are looking forward to get more comments on the possible 
> generalization.
>
> Do you think it's worthy to apply the drafts to other area, e.g., 
> optical? If so, how to generalize?
>
>  
>
> BR,
>
> Amy (on behalf of the co-authors)
>
>  
>
> **********************************************************************
> ***************** This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential 
> information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or 
> entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information 
> contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or 
> partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other 
> than the intended
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, 
> please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
> **********************************************************************
> *****************
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp