Re: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Mon, 04 August 2014 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
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 6093A1A032C for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 n1bqLjfrYbRB for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29B531A00F5 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHX22179; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 21:08:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML705-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.142) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 22:08:40 +0100
Received: from DFWEML706-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.145]) by dfweml705-chm.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.240]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:08:37 -0700
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08
Thread-Index: AQHPrmaoHNVf7qg6iEe4xgIIIKwAz5vA5iOAgAB8AgD//4wcoA==
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 21:08:36 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C086A9@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com>
References: <53DD040A.6000809@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E1729C08671@dfweml706-chm.china.huawei.com> <53DFF088.70506@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <53DFF088.70506@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.102]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/wQdTrpir3KUl7OaSsb0zBwAZab8
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08
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: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 21:08:44 -0000

Hi Lou,

Since the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object is meant to allow each transit node to inspect the TLV's under it, each transit node will inspect RBI or WA method and apply if it has relevance for the node; otherwise just pass to the next hop. (Section 5 of RFC 5420 has this clause: "This means that this object SHOULD only be
used for attributes that require support at some transit LSRs and so require examination at all transit LSRs.")

This may not be optimal but a way to get around technical changes as you pointed out not to do so at this moment. 

If we want this to be optimal and require technical changes to the draft, we can go with an alternative, utilizing [RSVP-RO] draft with ERO subobject/HOP Attributes to encode RBI or WA method as its TLVs. 

Whichever the WG wants, we can go either way. 

Thanks,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:44 PM
To: Leeyoung; CCAMP; draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Still have issues in WSON Processing HOP Attribute Encoding in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-08

Young,
   
On 8/4/2014 4:29 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lou, here's my comment on your comment. In a nutshell replacing [RSVP-RO] with [RFC5420] will solve the confusion. 
>
> Please see in-line for details.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Young
So you are saying that Resource Block Information and Wavelength Assignment Method are encoded end-to-end and *never* have hop/node/interface specific meaning (as they are each encoded as an Attribute TLV in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE object), is this correct?

ARE YOU SURE?  

How do you envision the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE object conveying per-hop information? (As discussed in section 3.2 and the first paragraph on section 4.2.)

Lou
....