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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 22 May 2013 00:38 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 7ABDB21F93B1 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 17:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.462
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.197, 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 zKRmj282-4el for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 17:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy13-pub.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy13-pub.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.16.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0FBCC21F9371 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 17:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21513 invoked by uid 0); 22 May 2013 00:38:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy13.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 22 May 2013 00:38:20 -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:MIME-Version:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:CC:To:From; bh=vW6ThWbifN7Pt6pudK/AH9fxjPslRUDHUZsP38cWVYQ=; b=Zol/NeKxvhBZiBaFvRS7caWwqlZCrdrbXcNlMb8Ip4bnihm2WVv0WuqKnGrSnWf8CM3hPh3MmkqwiWCcb23Qptx+3uKHxj5jVFg+ta+HWYnCGnGV+GI/pJngeoZ8gTvv;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:45048 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Uex4O-0005sy-7T; Tue, 21 May 2013 18:38:20 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 20:38:16 -0400
Message-ID: <13ec9ac042d.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E1D508BCA@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <518A82D9.7080508@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF84317B000@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <518BAB17.9090807@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>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 AquaMail/1.2.4.0 (build: 2100294)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: "draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org>, 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: Wed, 22 May 2013 00:38:47 -0000

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
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>