Re: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext
Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es> Wed, 30 April 2014 09:00 UTC
Return-Path: <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9A21A076F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 02:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.345
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id etztQqiR3Kkx for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 02:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from navarro.puc.rediris.es (unknown [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca01::139]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6C31A076B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 02:00:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by navarro.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>) id 1WfQNM-0005Ha-Pt for ccamp@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:00:24 +0200
Received: from [84.88.61.50] (unknown [84.88.61.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F20A1FDE7 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:00:21 +0200 (CEST)
X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Message-ID: <5360BBA5.3070804@cttc.es>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:00:21 +0200
From: Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ccamp@ietf.org
References: <OF0A598851.0C5441D6-ON48257CCA.00242580-48257CCA.00279CC7@zte.com.cn> <CF8674F4.5E1E3%ggalimbe@cisco.com> <C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B302264D7@SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <C636AF2FA540124E9B9ACB5A6BECCE6B302264D7@SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040707060006040605040204"
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Ham
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/vcNRfPB5cHgjZr9WSBVSowuzUSw
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:00:38 -0000
El 30/04/2014 10:36, Zhangxian (Xian) escribió: > > Hi, Lei, Gabriele, > > Thank you for the comments. Please see my reply inline: > > *From:*Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe) [mailto:ggalimbe@cisco.com] > *Sent:* 2014?4?30?15:42 > *To:* wang.lei131@zte.com.cn; ccamp@ietf.org; Zhangxian (Xian) > *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] One comment on > draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext > > I agree with LeWang, > > Xian: I think Lei has made a good point, i.e., CFG and SWG currently > has a fixed relationship. Will remove one field (i.e., CFG) to avoid > carrying duplicated information in the next rotation of the draft. If > anyone has different opinions, please speak up. > Ramon> I don't know, I don't have a strong opinion, yet if we check https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2014-04-23-itu-t-sg-15-ccamp-lsr-on-flexible-grid-reply-to-ietf-ccamp-ls012-attachment-1.pdf quote "If such a proposal is made in the future, it is more likely that a second flexible grid with different granularity will be defined in addition to the existing grid rather than changes made to the current flexible grid (...) One of the reasons behind the 2:1 relationship between the slot width granularity and the nominal central frequency granularity in the current flexible grid is to be able to describe any of the existing fixed spacing grids in Recommendation ITU-T G.694.1 using the flexible grid. If in future a flexible grid with finer granularity is introduced, the same 2:1 relationship should not be assumed." so it is a design trade-off? do we stick to the current grid definition *only* or we are more future-proof? Ramon
- [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flexible… wang.lei131
- Re: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flex… Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)
- Re: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flex… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flex… Ramon Casellas
- Re: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flex… Jonas Mårtensson
- Re: [CCAMP] One comment on draft-zhang-ccamp-flex… Gabriele Maria Galimberti (ggalimbe)