Re: [CCAMP] Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-08: priority

Hi Giovanni,

The wavelength priority you propose seems different from the what we encoded per Rao Rajan's suggestion. What we encoded in section 2.3 of gen encode is not giving wavelength a priority level, among which I believe your wavelength property specifies.

What we are proposing is what labels are available/not available for each priority level (similar to LSP reservation or holding priority) as the following encoding dictates: 

    0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |A| Reserved    | Priority Flags|        Reserved               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                           Label Set Field                     |
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   Where

   A (Availability bit) = 1 or 0 indicates that the labels listed in
   the following label set field are available or not available,
   respectively, for use at a given priority level as indicated by the
   Priority Flags.

   Priority Flags: Bit 8 corresponds to priority level 0 and bit 15
   corresponds to priority level 7. If a bit is set then the labels in
   the label set field are available or not available as indicated by
   the A bit for use at that particular priority level.

Let's begin if we are in agreement with this point. 

Thanks.
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 12:40 PM
To: Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Cc: CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-08: priority

Here my latest mail  with comments on wavelength priority... 

Here my memory on past discussion (please correct if wrong)
- last short thread was during ieft83 (around 26/28 march), last mail was from me and did not get answers. The content here below cover that mail as well.
- discussions about wl priority happens among authors not on ccamp mailing list. On the mailing list you announce draft update around dec 2011.  

Well, I'm not complaining about how discussion happen, simply I saw  a not-trivial addition to wg document, hence my comments.

Cheers
G

On Jul 31, 2012, at 24:34 , Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) wrote:

> Dear authors / ccamp,
> 
> here a few comments related to the priority field added to draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode:
> 
> A couple of editorial comments
> 1)  "wavelenght priority" appears in a draft that claim to be general. In fact is available in "Available Labels Sub-TLV" and "Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV". So is a wavelength or label-like priority?
> 2)  why an 8 bits (bit field) instead of the classic 3 bits (integer [0 .. 7]?
> 
> 
> Then few other comments
> 3)  How the priority is used versus the A flag . Draft text report
> "  
>   A (Availability bit) = 1 or 0 indicates that the labels listed in
>   the following label set field are available or not available,
>   respectively, for use at a given priority level as indicated by the
>   Priority Flags.
> 
> "
> So does it means that there could be different "available labels sub-TLVs" advertised? 
> 
> 4) Still unclear to me how this priority is different from the one reported in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kattan-wson-property-01 and eventually if this "priority" could fit the LSP priority already available (as one of the comment we received at that time)
> 
> Cheers
> G
> 

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp