RE: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Gone! ☺

Thanks to you for the careful review.

BR
Daniele

From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: giovedì 9 febbraio 2017 01:08
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07


If that's what you mean, let me suggest simplifying:

OLD
At least one priority
level MUST be advertised that, unless overridden by local policy,
SHALL be at priority level 0.
NEW
At least one priority
level MUST be advertised. If only one priority level is advertised,
it MUST be at priority level 0.

Thanks for the extended discussion of this. It all looks fine.

pr

On 8 Feb 2017, at 4:14, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:

Hi Pete,



This is an “inheritance” from GMPLS, where supporting a single priority equals not supporting priorities. If you don’t want to support priorities you don’t want your traffic to be preempted…hence priority 0.



>Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't need to say anything about local configurations.

For me it’s ok not to say anything on that.



Thanks

Daniele



From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 18:05
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Jari Arkko <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07



Hi Daniele,

Thanks for addressing everything. There's only one issue left in section 4.1.1 on Priority, below. I've trimmed out all the rest.

On 7 Feb 2017, at 3:36, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:

I get that part ("At least one priority level MUST be advertised"). It's the end I don't understand: "that, unless overridden by local policy, SHALL be at priority level 0." What does that mean?

[DC] It means that if only one priority is supported it has to be priority 0.

So, let me see if I have this right: It's OK to have 01100000 but not 01000000 or 00100000? If so, why is that?

For any particular administrative purpose it could be possible to set it to a different value, but that shouldn’t be done.

Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't need to say anything about local configurations.

pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]