Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 21 August 2013 15:41 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 6449411E80E3 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.238
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, 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 PClr2g8hP6uu for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy13-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy13-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.16.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F40511E80FC for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26956 invoked by uid 0); 21 Aug 2013 15:40:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy13.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2013 15:40:55 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Cc:To:Subject:From; bh=yhBN/ANsfyRw0X2yvgZ4LQKMLIEB/ApOBV92lYOP6vU=; b=M+S+1tFQWV2JoXUY8THSVxewwuFm6ubeaGmClfIQaCBh0NCQMpvRKmBDg2Aw3gBzCV+C/WDes2eGUFht2Uwchhu0fIZ07aTHHGBJ1GaG8fs049kRAEllmN5YSmjODvPs;
Received: from [69.89.31.113] (port=34023 helo=localhost) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1VCAWl-0005CO-82; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:40:55 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
References: <031c01ce8b87$45b79cb0$d126d610$@olddog.co.uk> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48126BF3@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <51F94497.8010402@labn.net> <044501ce9c3d$48007250$d80156f0$@olddog.co.uk> <5212818C.8030409@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE481443D9@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <52137CD5.7000206@labn.net>
Message-ID: <2517783c.1377099588810@mail.labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:40:51 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: ProfiMailGo/4.12.00
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model
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, 21 Aug 2013 15:41:23 -0000

Great! I think this closes the issue. As Adrian raised it we should confirm with him too. 

Adrian?

 Thanks,
Lou

On 10:39am, August 21, 2013, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> Lou,
> 
> I've applied the text changes you proposed and added RFC1195 and RFC5307 as normative (correct?) references.
> 
> If there is no other comment i go ahead with the ID submission.
> 
> Thanks
> Daniele
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> > Sent: martedì 20 agosto 2013 16:28
> > To: Daniele Ceccarelli
> > Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-
> > model@tools.ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model
> > 
> > Daniele,
> > Thanks for looking at this.  I think we're almost there.  See below for
> > details that hopefully let us close on this.
> > 
> > On 8/20/2013 3:18 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> > > Lou, Adrian,
> > > 
> > > > > It may be the case that only a small proportion of CCAMP is
> > > > > interested in IS-IS, and it may be the case that the intersection of
> > > > > those people with those interested in OTN is vanishingly small. If
> > > > > that is the case
> > > 
> > > I think that's the case
> > > 
> > > > > (I guess Lou can find out) we should excuse IS-IS in a more open and
> > > > > blatant way while soliciting and offering to help work on IS-IS for OTN.
> > > 
> > > I've searched the words routing and OSPF in the text. The word routing
> > occurs 13 times (6 meaningful, i.e. not references, abstract etc) and OSPF 11
> > times (4 meaningful).
> > > 
> > 
> > I think you need to expand your search to include [RFC4203].
> > 
> > s/as defined by [RFC4203],/as defined by [RFC4203], [RFC5307],
> > 
> > s/[RFC4203] only allows/GMPLS OSPF [RFC4203] and GMPLS IS-IS [RFC5307]
> > only allow
> > 
> > s/tools provided by [RFC4203]/tools provided by [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]
> > 
> > s/the OSPF-TE extensions defined in [RFC4203] require/the routing
> > extensions defined in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307] require
> > 
> > s/[RFC4202] and [RFC4203]/[RFC4202], [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]
> > 
> > Can now drop:
> > 
> > As far as it concerns routing, analogous considerations apply to
> > IS-IS [RFC5307] but in the following only a gap analysis with respect
> > to OSPF-TE is provided.
> > 
> > > We might focus on the meaningful ones and see where IS-IS can be
> > brought in.
> > > 
> > > -Routing occurrence #6
> > > "ODU3 H-LSP is eligible from ODU2 LSP
> > > perspective since from the routing it is known that this ODU3
> > > interface at node Z, supports an ODU2 termination exporting a TS
> > > granularity 1.25Gbps/2.5Gbps."
> > > [DC] it should be generic enough to cover both OSPF and IS-IS
> > > 
> > > -Routing occurrence #7
> > > "The TS granularity information is needed in the routing protocol as
> > > the ingress node (A in the previous example) needs to know"
> > > [DC] it should be generic enough to cover both OSPF and IS-IS
> > > 
> > > -Routing occurrences #8 and #9
> > > "In conclusion both routing and signaling needs to be extended to
> > > appropriately represent the TS granularity/PT information.  Routing
> > > needs to represent a link's TS granularity and PT capabilities as
> > > well as the supported multiplexing hierarchy"
> > > [DC] it should be generic enough to cover both OSPF and IS-IS
> > > 
> > > -Routing occurrence #10
> > > " From a routing perspective, [RFC4203] allows advertising [RFC4328]
> > > interfaces (single TS type) without the capability of providing
> > > precise information about bandwidth specific allocation."
> > > [DC] We could change this into:
> > > " From an OSPF perspective, [RFC4203] allows advertising [RFC4328]
> > > interfaces (single TS type) without the capability of providing
> > > precise information about bandwidth specific allocation. In the case of
> > > IS-IS no extension is defined for [RFC4328].
> > > 
> > 
> > see above for an alternate proposal.
> > 
> > > - Routing occurrence #11
> > > "With respect to the routing, please note that in case of multi stage
> > > multiplexing hierarchy (e.g.  ODU1->ODU2->ODU3), not only the ODUk/
> > > OTUk bandwidth (ODU3) and service layer bandwidth (ODU1) are
> > needed,
> > > but also the intermediate one (ODU2).  This is a typical case of
> > > spatial allocation problem."
> > > [DC] it should be generic enough to cover both OSPF and IS-IS
> > 
> > should be "With respect to routing," (drop the)
> > > 
> > > - OSPF occurrence #3
> > > "In conclusion, the OSPF-TE extensions defined in [RFC4203] require a
> > > different ISCD per signal type in order to advertise each supported
> > > container."
> > > [DC] We could change this into:
> > > "In conclusion, the OSPF-TE extensions defined in [RFC4203] require a
> > > different ISCD per signal type in order to advertise each supported
> > > container, while in the case of IS-IS... (suggestions welcome).
> > > 
> > 
> > see above.
> > 
> > > - OSPF occurrence #4
> > > "Per [RFC2328], OSPF messages are directly encapsulated in IP
> > > datagrams and depend on IP fragmentation when transmitting packets
> > > larger than the network MTU."
> > > - OSPF occurrences #5 and #6
> > > "[RFC2328] recommends that "IP
> > > fragmentation should be avoided whenever possible."  This
> > > recommendation further constraints solutions as OSPF does not support
> > > any generic mechanism to fragment OSPF LSAs."
> > > [DC] I only could find an expired draft regarding IS-IS encapsulation
> > > in IP datagrams
> > > 
> > 
> > Per [RFC2328] should start a new paragraph.
> > 
> > You could add. "Even when used in IP environments IS-IS [RFC1195], does
> > not support message sizes larger than a link's maximum frame size."
> > 
> > I think that's it.
> > 
> > Lou
> > 
> > > BR
> > > Daniele
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> > > > Sent: lunedì 19 agosto 2013 22:35
> > > > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; Daniele Ceccarelli;
> > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info- model@tools.ietf.org
> > > > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of
> > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model
> > > > 
> > > > Adrian,
> > > > 
> > > > I suspect that we've been hit by some post-IETF vacationing.
> > > > 
> > > > Daniele, Authors,
> > > > 
> > > > Any additional thoughts on this one remaining open issue?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Lou
> > > > 
> > > > On 8/18/2013 2:03 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > At the end of the intro we added the following sentence:
> > > > > > > "  As far as it concerns routing, analogous considerations apply to IS-IS
> > > > > > > [RFC5307] but in the following only a gap analysis with respect
> > > > > > > to OSPF-TE
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > provided."
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Given that the analysis for 5307 is pretty similar to 4203, I think
> > > > > > you should take a pass at including it as well.  I'm happy to
> > > > > > review/contribute as needed.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Lou (chair & doc shepherd)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Was there any further progress on this?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I see that the current revision addresses all other points. The note
> > > > > added to excuse mentioning IS-IS is a bit skinny, and I would not
> > > > > like to bet money on you having actually done the analysis to
> > > > > support adding it :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > It may be the case that only a small proportion of CCAMP is
> > > > > interested in IS-IS, and it may be the case that the intersection of
> > > > > those people with those interested in OTN is vanishingly small. If
> > > > > that is the case (I guess Lou can find out) we should excuse IS-IS
> > > > > in a more open and blatant way while soliciting and offering to help work
> > on IS-IS for OTN.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Adrian
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
>