Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft
Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com> Tue, 10 November 2020 11:34 UTC
Return-Path: <dieter.beller@nokia.com>
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 253693A1146; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 03:34:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com
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 B_Ifl39IDCn1; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 03:34:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR05-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-vi1eur05on2120.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.21.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9D733A0D64; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 03:34:17 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Axj3l8YGaAOT2nwLvrjA3c7enQamiborYs4RfTH1OxGc7MpgrPNqLMGqUk1cBaj6RSYXPXChoTLfSro6R+W0bvyG5U/gyYOpHc/gCIPM3GFr+OB1qj29JY0a7jAwGvRTjQ/Vij3pB6tik9n6f3imt5y+fs/g9dI0lH+2kmh9r18Ah+F1KP9/YC2WZUlOgzwJfux9AEhCpIEY5+YDluyfZAo+XvtCUoG8AKIn7kUYoV0IIyMW2KK/sbsCURipIrxaMWXUx3Yo//vMDftllDpmfyMg2DMp/q2hWE8oWI4vWebvraej8OrCQtKWHLu3rNIZwHbI7H1PhLkPAtVdt8MjpQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ihcSYI795tetjcKFfhiWcVPlifKeJlM53BOt+WQqftE=; b=FkZNFA0xFr+Z/rpKWAxxjvUsMbDdaEabBFUzSGZ9hZUcPcLpNK0JpSJHvF60MDUiFqHGXEQ0nnoa5V3i+IfKICq7z2+2GFUnP754siVFGaqG/uyzXP8F0HrnSlixn32YK5Ru5ITWDM6EKT3Sw7meMT9E+lIBl/6yyKWcR6Eg3q80+mQErybpcHlNCYYpFjPNkXDfbKA769/I1LU/hTRvHKRrDcpSQk7hUV4gjrE23FrD8iuiZnPGsY6KxUthQPZAgLlabYUZBQ/J/3touiR4mAaHhMlJVOCZx/UsmM7i8Ij/VabiWt57EbAfruBDxYZlQLM0mGSB6tWJcsjlPW+EWw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nokia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nokia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nokia.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ihcSYI795tetjcKFfhiWcVPlifKeJlM53BOt+WQqftE=; b=WS6JXWeY7Mm8onQ2318BkVYxP5qfnu4hIUYUhdQiL9SYbxzqOKLa+Qkgps7Vn1ZrF3uz0rTbZLTuoj8k7fOFpjxYu7oJazEZDuAxTz/9s9YcXWY9+WLsdr5wYiwTP0Pb3cTdYVH7tnWLS1YxXghEYiexVqGagzSYXp2oSz7t4j0=
Authentication-Results: nokia.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;nokia.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nokia.com;
Received: from AM7PR07MB6788.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:20b:1be::14) by AM6PR07MB4040.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:209:33::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3564.13; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:34:14 +0000
Received: from AM7PR07MB6788.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9444:9b92:5e0f:4971]) by AM7PR07MB6788.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9444:9b92:5e0f:4971%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3564.021; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:34:14 +0000
To: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>, Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
References: <8F544027-DF1B-41B0-8C27-75093878FA33@juniper.net>
From: Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com>
Organization: Nokia
Message-ID: <5e306712-9544-b6e9-d4c6-a7ac6424bb7e@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 12:34:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.1
In-Reply-To: <8F544027-DF1B-41B0-8C27-75093878FA33@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------58E4ADA09379623E1AF67227"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: [88.152.185.31]
X-ClientProxiedBy: PR0P264CA0147.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:100:1b::15) To AM7PR07MB6788.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:20b:1be::14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Received: from [192.168.18.11] (88.152.185.31) by PR0P264CA0147.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:100:1b::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3541.21 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:34:13 +0000
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 928b4168-aa23-47b4-d706-08d8856c8cdd
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: AM6PR07MB4040:
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-Forked: True
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <AM6PR07MB40405998EE9ABCFB27230538E2E90@AM6PR07MB4040.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:8882;
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: tC0gkvWepJtjUYzo+/KMuSyVROH60DtTFJm/ejVnHVVu6UlPaYX3Abszan0jXE5z9p1bNMOuTVvJIKbrQt4W9qn68uQ12QnvmUQtmKAVeOwXqj9gyF/pftX4iyv1klgM/hIQsms5ekQPz5zKjS7x4Q8BnYsbl772zfG8nlEWBr7vJ8OCUPDcQo7Le7indulU5yGwPRv+vSCeIEHuTuRT6Ro3foX3Tu3Jl8o6yCgCIlp9PSZeCL43JMQBowmqUOP94vRTOc62XHLJJaRdWczroUO7c8zMjUZOXWmgGu/4Lyu64fDsqmNDC5VuHu+3Qti7LQK7lTAWr9peMqKf1imOcVFBDj0oQKas4tCeruGa3R70YZHJCrbAFEsOXaGoaNmtTpMXXfDtucE/R6h056U3rOLnoI993kEhx4zFqhjn2DEzkcuW8hMkKQD6Oo+Qk+jUt1fNOSCOEnTonajCjpE3lg==
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:AM7PR07MB6788.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(366004)(136003)(346002)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(36756003)(110136005)(5660300002)(31696002)(4326008)(30864003)(53546011)(2906002)(316002)(16576012)(166002)(83380400001)(33964004)(956004)(8936002)(6486002)(66556008)(478600001)(16526019)(31686004)(2616005)(186003)(966005)(86362001)(66476007)(107886003)(66946007)(26005)(36916002)(224303003)(43740500002)(579004)(559001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: 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
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 928b4168-aa23-47b4-d706-08d8856c8cdd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: AM7PR07MB6788.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2020 11:34:14.1316 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: l4B0RQpp6I01an6vSrfMK6nRb1kXXnAxIgPble5j0jkNdjWkQPwriuA498/elYVnkHiuKntO4mD49HWwY9J7gg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM6PR07MB4040
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/xSk5f3c8WUfEbO2_K-as3bLYpZY>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 11:34:54 -0000
Hi Gert, all, there has been consensus to support the 3 options as currently defined in the YANG model (see https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang). Stating that the organizational-mode option is under discussion is passing a wrong message to the CCAMP WG! The situation is the following: there is rough consensus that the organizational-mode option is valuable and there is only one single person continuously disagreeing because of another preference. Thanks, Sergio and Dieter On 10.11.2020 11:09, Gert Grammel wrote: > > Hi Fatai, > > The group managed to find agreement on the Application code and the > explicit mode whereas Organizational codes are under discussion. In > essence, the question is whether non-standard organizations can define > their own codes along the same lines as ITU-T did (case-A) or if > additional parameters need to be made explicit (case-B). > > Regards > > Gert > > *From: *Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com> > *Date: *Friday, November 6, 2020 at 08:01 > *To: *Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, Italo Busi > <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>, > "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org> > *Cc: *Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com> > *Subject: *答复: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > Hi all, > > I think there are too many options (three!) , which introduces too > much flexibility and complexity to this document and the real world. > > If “only application codes” can work, why the others are necessary? > > I think we can try if we could keep only one option and remove the > other options to keep it simple , because we could treat e.g., > “organization mode” as proprietary implementation since it is really > proprietary among some organization. > > Thanks > > Fatai > > *发件人:*Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com] > *发送时间:* 2020年11月2日 23:51 > *收件人:* Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>; 'Gert Grammel' > <ggrammel@juniper.net>; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org > *抄送:* Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com> > *主题:* RE: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft > > Hi, > > Sorry to jump in but I’m having hard times to understand what the > issue is. What is wrong with the actual modes? I asked if it was > possible to merge 2 of them and go down to 2 but it was proven not > possible. > > Moreover this is no longer just author’s agreement since the draft is > a WG document. > > What italo says below is correct. We decided that all the modes are > optional, hence the model needs to be self-consistent and all > permutations should be allowed. > > > But once again, it’s not clear to me what the issue is, could you > please elaborate it a bit? > > Cheers, > > Daniele > > *From:* Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com <mailto:Italo.Busi@huawei.com>> > *Sent:* den 2 november 2020 12:42 > *To:* 'Gert Grammel' <ggrammel@juniper.net > <mailto:ggrammel@juniper.net>>; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org > <mailto:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org> > *Cc:* Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com > <mailto:Dieter.Beller@nokia.com>> > *Subject:* RE: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft > > Hi Gert, > > Just an high level comment: the initial agreement between the > co-authors was that to define three modes (application code, > organization mode and explicit mode) all as being optional. > > Therefore, IMHO, the YANG model for each mode should be > self-consistent to give implementers the freedom to implement either: > > * Only application codes > * Only organization modes > * Only explicit modes > * Both application codes and organization modes > * Both application codes and explicit modes > * Both organizational modes and explicit modes > * All options (application code, organizational mode and explicit mode) > > Please find some detailed comments of mine in line below. > > My 2 cents > > Italo > > *From:* Gert Grammel [mailto:ggrammel@juniper.net > <mailto:ggrammel@juniper.net>] > *Sent:* domenica 1 novembre 2020 12:02 > *To:* ccamp-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; > ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org> > *Cc:* Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com > <mailto:Dieter.Beller@nokia.com>>; Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com > <mailto:Italo.Busi@huawei.com>> > *Subject:* Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft > > It would be good to tune the heat of the down by a few centigrade. Why > spending time writing definitions, getting agreement and rewriting > again in less than 24h? The core of the discussion is where to hang > parameters in a YANG-tree in a consistent manner. How exciting is this? > > The minimum we should strive for in IETF is to come up with a > consistent model. To do so, it is good engineering practice to first > agree on the problem. That said, I am happy that apparently the Case-A > and Case-B description laid out in my previous mail turned out not to > be contentious. > > About the issue of “organizational mode”: > > 1. Case-A: AFAIK the most common and Transponder Model today is > OpenConfig, which uses a single identifier for the > operational-mode. The use is simple because it can be used as a > matching criteria to make sure the two transponders at each end > interoperate (given the OLS is within spec). > 2. Case-B: proposes a series of additional criteria that must be met > by adding explicit parameters such as frequency range, power-range > etc. So the simple matching rule is no more sufficient and > additional parameters must be checked to assess compatibility. > > I think it is a fair ask to hear from the CCAMP-WG if we are happy to > ditch the OpenConfig way and implement Case-B. > > // > > /[[Italo Busi] ] I am not an expert of OpenConfig but Dieter has > already confirmed that the latest definition in github > (https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues/29#issuecomment-719503150 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=44077b9a-1b9c42d9-44073b01-861fcb972bfc-e503d80e6efd81dd&q=1&e=acdb6ee5-5f1d-46c2-9f88-0c7a7270ed91&u=https*3A*2F*2Fgithub.com*2Fietf-ccamp-wg*2Fdraft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang*2Fissues*2F29*23issuecomment-719503150__;JSUlJSUlJSU!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VUTkZYjr1SzBsWUrTlUxd7xhsWsLrdP8W5TjoHhNmVPjChpludoTcqiy1dV-vxg_$>) > is aligned with existing implementations (I assume, based on his > working experience, he was also considering OpenConfig implementations)./ > > // > > /Anyhow, OpenConfig experts can provide their comments on this > definition, if they think it is not correct./ > > About the issue of “where to put the explicit parameters”: > > 1. Case-A: puts all explicit parameters in the explicit mode and > provides a leafref to Organizational modes. Explicit min/max > parameters can be liked to an Organizational mode by referencing > the organizational mode from the explicit mode. Organizational > modes continue to be used just like Application codes as a > matching condition. > > *//* > > /[[Italo Busi] ] The references between the explicit mode and the > application code/organization modes have been added as informative to > represent the fact that an explicit mode can support zero, one or more > application codes and/or zero, one or more organization modes. It was > not intended to provide additional information wrt the application > code or organization mode definitions and I think it should not be > used in that way to avoid creating inconsistencies (see comment below)./ > > 2. Case-B: puts a subset of the parameters also defined in the > explicit mode into the Organizational mode. By doing so we now > have duplicated parameters in operational and explicit mode. > > Structurally this creates a conflict, because it is not clear which > definition takes precedence in a matching condition. It is this > structural issue we need to address to move forward. > > /[[Italo Busi] ] I think you have spotted a potential technical issue > with the current definition of the leafref between an explicit mode > and an application code or organization mode but this is independent > from the fact that explitic parameters are defined or not for the > application mode./ > > /This inconsistency could apply also to parameters that are implicitly > defined by the organization mode (or even by an application code). For > example, the YANG model allows an explicit mode which supports one > type of FEC to claim support of an application code or of an > organization model which (implicitly) requires a different type of FEC./ > > /If the client requests the interface to operate according to a given > application code or organization mode, I think that the expectation is > that the FEC defined for that application code or organization mode is > being used./ > > // > > /I think to resolve this issue we should either clarify the rules an > implementation MUST follow to avoid reporting inconsistent information > or some precedence rules (considering both implicit and explicit > parameters) or remove the leafref./ > > About the parameter set of the “Organizational mode”: > > 1. Case-A: allows to use any set of explicit parameters to add more > information to organizational modes as a reference > > // > > /[[Italo Busi] ] The YANG model for application codes and organization > modes should be self-consistent to supports implementations that do > not implement the explicit-mode. Moreover, using the leafref to > provide more information would be a potential source of inconsistency > (see comment above)/ > > 2. Base-B: allows a small subset of parameters to be used to further > define the organizational mode. This set is fixed as described in > case-B. > > As the selection criteria for the set of parameters has not been > disclosed, it is difficult to understand whether the list remains such > short or is growing much longer over time. It would be good to get the > sense of the WG on that aspect too. > > /[[Italo Busi] ] According to the latest definition in github > (https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues/29#issuecomment-719503150 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=c4b9f9f1-9b22c0b2-c4b9b96a-861fcb972bfc-7ad4277e89b62b88&q=1&e=acdb6ee5-5f1d-46c2-9f88-0c7a7270ed91&u=https*3A*2F*2Fgithub.com*2Fietf-ccamp-wg*2Fdraft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang*2Fissues*2F29*23issuecomment-719503150__;JSUlJSUlJSU!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VUTkZYjr1SzBsWUrTlUxd7xhsWsLrdP8W5TjoHhNmVPjChpludoTcqiy1TYJhR0h$>) > the current list is complete./ > > // > > /Those who have implemented organization modes (including OpenConfig > experts) can provide their comment if they think this list is not > complete./ > > // > > Cheers > > Gert > > *From: *CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org>> > on behalf of Dieter Beller <Dieter.Beller@nokia.com > <mailto:Dieter.Beller@nokia.com>> > *Organization: *Nokia > *Date: *Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 10:28 > *To: *Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com > <mailto:Italo.Busi@huawei.com>>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org > <mailto:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org > <mailto:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org > <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>> > *Subject: *Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft > > *[External Email. Be cautious of content]* > > Thanks, Italo, for your contribution to the technical discussion! > > I would like to emphasize that the text on GitHub ( see > https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues/29#issuecomment-719503150 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=2c758499-73eebdda-2c75c402-861fcb972bfc-3975d7433728ea76&q=1&e=acdb6ee5-5f1d-46c2-9f88-0c7a7270ed91&u=https*3A*2F*2Fgithub.com*2Fietf-ccamp-wg*2Fdraft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang*2Fissues*2F29*23issuecomment-719503150__;JSUlJSUlJSU!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VUTkZYjr1SzBsWUrTlUxd7xhsWsLrdP8W5TjoHhNmVPjChpludoTcqiy1W1fns7e$>) > tries > to provide the technical justification for the modeling approach taken > for the organizational mode option - here is the text, which was > referenced in Italo's mail: > > *Organizational Mode:* > Organizations like operator groups, industry fora, or equipment > vendors can define organizational modes, which will allow these > organizations to make use of advanced transceiver capabilities going > beyond existing standardized application codes. Such an organizational > mode is identified by the organization-identifier attribute defining > the scope and an operational-mode that is meaningful within the scope > of the organization. Hence, the two attributes must always be > considered together. Two transceivers are inter-operable, if they have > at least one (organization-identifier, operational-mode) pair in > common and if the supported carrier frequency and power attributes > have a matching range. This is a necessary condition for path > computation in the context of organizational modes. An operational > mode is a transceiver preset (a configuration with well-defined > parameter values) subsuming several transceiver properties including: > • FEC type > • Modulation scheme > • Encoding (mapping of bit patterns to symbols in the constellation > diagram) > • Baud rate (symbol rate) > • Carrier bandwidth (typically measured in GHz) > > The major reason for these transceiver presets is the fact that the > attribute values typically cannot be configured independently and are > therefore advertised as supported operational mode capabilities. > It is the responsibility of the organization to assign operational > modes and to ensure that operational modes are unique and not > ambiguous within the scope of the organization. > In addition to the transceiver properties subsumed by the operational > mode, optical power and carrier frequency related properties are > modeled separately, i.e., outside of the operational mode. This > modeling approach allows transponders using different transceiver > variants (e.g. optical modules) with slightly different power and/or > frequency range properties to interoperate without defining separate > operational modes. Different optical modules (pluggables) from > different suppliers typically have slightly different input and output > power ranges or may have slightly different carrier frequency tuning > ranges. > The received channel power and the received total power are two > parameters that can be measured by the receiver and can be provided by > the transceiver in order to allow a controller to determine the > expected performance of the end-to-end service taking into account the > optical impairments along the path. > > > Moreover, implementations exist that are based on the same modeling > approach and hence it is *already field proven!* > > > Thanks, > Dieter > > On 30.10.2020 17:14, Italo Busi wrote: > > Hi Gert, > > Let me try to look at this issue from a different perspective. > > I think the objective of our work is to define a YANG model for > the optical specification methodologies which are used in the > field to represent the capabilities of the transponders. > > I do not think that it is in the scope of our work to discuss the > optical specification methodologies other than understanding how > they could be used for path computation (ensuring interoperability > between the sender and receiver) and modelled using YANG. > > As far as I have understood from past discussion, we have agreed > to support three optical specification methodologies which are > used by existing optical interfaces implementations and we have > named them as application code (ITU-T G.698.2), organizational > mode and explicit mode. > > After some rounds of discussions and questions for clarification, > the latest proposed text to describe the behavior of the > organization mode has been prepared on github: > > https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues/29#issuecomment-719503150 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=fe2bb22f-a1b08b6c-fe2bf2b4-861fcb972bfc-7c29789e806b744e&q=1&e=acdb6ee5-5f1d-46c2-9f88-0c7a7270ed91&u=https*3A*2F*2Fgithub.com*2Fietf-ccamp-wg*2Fdraft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang*2Fissues*2F29*23issuecomment-719503150__;JSUlJSUlJSU!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VUTkZYjr1SzBsWUrTlUxd7xhsWsLrdP8W5TjoHhNmVPjChpludoTcqiy1RUYzMO4$> > > I think this updated description has improved the clarity of how > the operational mode are implemented and, in particular that: > > "Two transceivers are inter-operable, if they have at least one > (organization-identifier, operational-mode) pair in common and if > the supported carrier frequency and power attributes have a > matching range." > > As a consequence, I think that the YANG model defined in "Case A" > below does not work (since it does not provide enough information > to check that " the supported carrier frequency and power > attributes have a matching range ") while the one defined in "Case > B" works properly. > > This text describing the operational mode behavior has been > provided by people who have implemented it. > > Therefore, I think we can update the draft with the changes > discussed in the last few weeks incorporating the definitions > capturing our current understanding of how these optical > specification methodologies (application code, organizational mode > and explicit mode) behave and the YANG model aligned with our > current understanding (i.e., based on "Case B" below). > > Since we are not yet in WG LC stage, we still have plenty of time > to update both the description and the YANG model based on the > feedbacks we receive from data plane experts. > > My 2 cents > > Italo (as co-author of the draft) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gert Grammel [mailto:ggrammel@juniper.net > <mailto:ggrammel@juniper.net>] > > Sent: giovedì 29 ottobre 2020 17:34 > > To: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; > ccamp@ietf.org <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairments draft > > We discussed today a difference in the interpretation of the model > related to > https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues/29 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=30d0fc94-6f4bc5d7-30d0bc0f-861fcb972bfc-5d5353826774237a&q=1&e=acdb6ee5-5f1d-46c2-9f88-0c7a7270ed91&u=https*3A*2F*2Fgithub.com*2Fietf-ccamp-wg*2Fdraft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang*2Fissues*2F29__;JSUlJSUlJQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VUTkZYjr1SzBsWUrTlUxd7xhsWsLrdP8W5TjoHhNmVPjChpludoTcqiy1eeOzXrI$> > and its interpretation. The different interpretation lead to > different computation requirements. > > The design team appreciates feedback which of both Cases is > preferred and what consideration led to the preference > > Case A: > > ====== > > https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/issues#issuecomment-677768528 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=af80a102-f01b9841-af80e199-861fcb972bfc-509d8509e721d1cb&q=1&e=acdb6ee5-5f1d-46c2-9f88-0c7a7270ed91&u=https*3A*2F*2Fgithub.com*2Fietf-ccamp-wg*2Fdraft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang*2Fissues*23issuecomment-677768528__;JSUlJSUlJQ!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VUTkZYjr1SzBsWUrTlUxd7xhsWsLrdP8W5TjoHhNmVPjChpludoTcqiy1fp5UCUX$> > from August 20 documented the structure of the model: > > +--ro supported-modes* [mode-id] > > +--ro mode-id > > +--ro (mode)? > > | +--:(G.698.2) > > | | +--ro standard-mode? standard-mode > > | +--:(organizational-mode) > > | | +--ro operational-mode? operational-mode > > | | +--ro organization-identifier? vendor-identifier > > ➢| +--:(explicit-mode) > > ➢| +--ro supported-standard-mode*? leafref > > | +--ro modulation-types identityref > > | ...... > > This snippet would allow to use standard mode or operational mode > as a simple matching criteria for compatibility i.e. two > transponders with Operational-mode=X and suitable line parameters > would interoperate. > > In case of “explicit” mode, the set of parameters provided, can > support one or more application code/organizational mode, that > means this set of parameters if applied to configure the > transceiver, is aligned with one or more application > code/organizational mode. > > (Note that there are no additional parameters associated to the > organizational mode in this case) > > Case B: > > ====== > > https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang/blob/master/ietf-optical-impairment-topology.tree > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=dacf1e95-855427d6-dacf5e0e-861fcb972bfc-13a67d7f67153c4a&q=1&e=acdb6ee5-5f1d-46c2-9f88-0c7a7270ed91&u=https*3A*2F*2Fgithub.com*2Fietf-ccamp-wg*2Fdraft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang*2Fblob*2Fmaster*2Fietf-optical-impairment-topology.tree__;JSUlJSUlJSU!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VUTkZYjr1SzBsWUrTlUxd7xhsWsLrdP8W5TjoHhNmVPjChpludoTcqiy1ToD0jv4$> > contains additional parameters to the Operational Mode that are > also replicated in the explicit mode. Those parameters are related > to the min/max ranges which are allowed. > > +--ro supported-mode* [mode-id] > > +--ro mode-id string > > +--ro (mode) > > +--:(G.698.2) > > | +--ro standard-mode? standard-mode > > +--:(organizational-mode) > > | +--ro organizational-mode > > | +--ro operational-mode? > > | | operational-mode > > | +--ro organization-identifier? > > | | organization-identifier > > | +--ro min-central-frequency? > > | | frequency-thz > > | +--ro max-central-frequency? > > | | frequency-thz > > | +--ro minimum-channel-spacing? > > | | frequency-ghz > > | +--ro tx-channel-power-min? dbm-t > > | +--ro tx-channel-power-max? dbm-t > > | +--ro rx-channel-power-min? dbm-t > > | +--ro rx-channel-power-max? dbm-t > > | +--ro rx-total-power-max? dbm-t > > +--:(explicit-mode) > > +--ro explicit-mode > > +--ro supported-modes > > | +--ro supported-application-codes* > > | | -> ../../mode-id > > | +--ro supported-organizational-modes* > > | -> ../../mode-id > > +--ro line-coding-bitrate? > > | identityref > > <snip> > > +--ro min-central-frequency? > > | frequency-thz > > +--ro max-central-frequency? > > | frequency-thz > > +--ro minimum-channel-spacing? > > | frequency-ghz > > +--ro tx-channel-power-min? > > | dbm-t > > +--ro tx-channel-power-max? > > | dbm-t > > +--ro rx-channel-power-min? > > | dbm-t > > +--ro rx-channel-power-max? > > | dbm-t > > +--ro rx-total-power-max? > > dbm-t > > In this case, interoperability can only be provided if the > organizational code on each side match AND all other explicit > parameters defined in the organizational-code have a matching range. > > (Note that min/max parameters are associated to the organizational > mode AND to the explicit mode in this case) > > Juniper Business Use Only > > _______________________________________________ > > CCAMP mailing list > > CCAMP@ietf.org <mailto:CCAMP@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=e2f70c1c-bd6c355f-e2f74c87-861fcb972bfc-c52544a2ca4d215d&q=1&e=acdb6ee5-5f1d-46c2-9f88-0c7a7270ed91&u=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fccamp__*3B*21*21NEt6yMaO-gk*21Qf7o1-a2YfLkPqzntQzH4eVYGLpUDj-1ysELXfiLRhkWu-G-RrJBibxJipiVa6Bx*24__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VUTkZYjr1SzBsWUrTlUxd7xhsWsLrdP8W5TjoHhNmVPjChpludoTcqiy1bI5nQgy$> >
- [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impairment… CCAMP Working Group
- Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impair… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impair… Italo Busi
- Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impair… Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impair… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impair… Italo Busi
- Re: [CCAMP] Webex meeting changed: Optical impair… Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical impair… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical im… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical im… Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical im… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical im… Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical im… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical im… Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
- Re: [CCAMP] 答复: Webex meeting changed: Optical im… Gert Grammel